9/11 stuff [Archive] - Page 2 - DC Junkies Political Message Board

View Full Version : 9/11 stuff

Pages : 1 [2]

disrupter

06-18-2008, 06:20 PM

Jesse Hemingway

06-19-2008, 12:12 AM

Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global

John Spiri

Speaking out: Democratic Party of Japan lawmaker
Yukihisa Fujita addresses the Diet and Prime Minister
Yasuo Fukuda on his doubts about the official story of
the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S.

The Japan Times

In a September 2003 article for The Guardian newspaper, Michael Meacher, who served as Tony Blair's environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003, shocked the establishment by calling the global war on terrorism "bogus." Even more controversially, he implied that the U.S. government either allowed 9/11 to happen, or played some role in the destruction wrought that day. Besides Meacher, few politicians have publicly questioned America's official 9/11 narrative — until Diet member Yukihisa Fujita.

In January 2008 Fujita, a member of the Democratic Party of Japan, asked the Japanese Parliament and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to explain gaping holes in the official 9/11 story that various groups — including those who call themselves the "911 Truth Movement" — claim to have exposed.

Fujita, along with a growing number of individuals — including European and American politicians — are leading a charge to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/06/18/lawmaker_takes_9_11_doubts_global

Scumbag

06-19-2008, 11:54 AM

Look at the buildings in the background of the video.

You will find they correlate to buildings more widely to the right than a strictly orthogonal view would have.

Your graphics are in error.
oops, you lose, . . . . again.

How far behind on this subject ARE you, scumbag?
I guess if you have to deal with your version of the facts, you have to continue to deny the truth of things. Just don't continue to insult the intellgence of people who can see you and your interpretations for what they are.

The facts speak for themselves and any other interpretation of them is nothing short of idiocy.

And in the world of idiots, disrupter, you are a king, indeed!

Scumbag

06-19-2008, 12:00 PM

mrbill

06-19-2008, 02:37 PM

disrupter

06-19-2008, 09:46 PM

Scumbag

06-20-2008, 03:01 AM

does someone pay you for your posts, Scumbag?

your last post was COMPLETELY void of content after I asserted facts.

Ad hominem,
when you don't have any facts to back up your case you attack the person presenting the opposing facts.

Ad hominem, taking cheap shots when you don't have anything worthwhile,

typical neocon.

Now are their any people willing to take on my asserted facts?
& Not just pass hot wind like Scumbag.
OK Firstly...let's look at the facts you asserted?

You called, and continue to call, the series of still images taken by the security camera at the boom gate, a video. False fact No.1

You say that the same camera was in line with the trajectory of the aircraft, which I have proven beyond doubt using actual aerial photography. (not graphics) False fact No.2

You also stated that the security camera was fitted with a wide angle lens. Yet you have not put any evidence to support your assertion. False fact No.3

Thing is with you loony crackpots, even if there was a 30 second clear actual video footage of a commercial airliner flying a few feet above the ground before impacting with the Pentagon and in slow motion you could actually see some of the passengers in the windows, you would still claim that it was a government plot and that the aircraft was a missile with the windows and passengers painted on the side of it.

You care nothing for the facts. Such abject denial of the facts brings me to believe you are a fucking idiot and if I think you're a fucking idiot, I will tell you so.

Nothing ad hominem about that!

By the way....I'm not a neocon. I am very much a Liberal. I'm just not a stupidly fanatical one like you is all!

Jesse Hemingway

06-20-2008, 03:09 AM

Ex-British Army Chief Confirms Peak Oil Motive for War; Praises Fraudulent Reconstruction Programs

by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Brigadier-General James Ellery CBE, the Foreign Office’s Senior Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad since 2003, confirmed the critical role of Iraqi oil reserves in potentially alleviating a “world shortage” of conventional oil. The Iraq War has helped to head off what Brigadier Ellery described as “the tide of Easternisation” – a shift in global political and economic power toward China and India, to whom goes “two thirds of the Middle East’s oil.”

After the 2004 transfer of authority to an interim Iraqi civilian administration, Brigadier Ellery set up and ran the 700-strong security framework operation in support of the US-funded Reconstruction of Iraq. His remarks were made as part of a presentation at the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London, sponsored by the Iraqi Youth Foundation, on 22nd April.

World Oil Shortage

“The reason that oil reached $117 a barrel last week”, he said, “was less to do with security of supply… than World shortage.” He went on to emphasise the strategic significance of Iraqi petroleum fields in relation to the danger of production peaks being breached in major oil reserves around the world. “Russia’s production has peaked at 10 million barrels per day; Africa has proved slow to yield affordable extra supplies – from Sudan and Angola for example. Thus the only near-term potential increase will be from Iraq,” he said. Whether Iraq began “favouring East or West” could therefore be “de-stabilizing” not only “within the region but to nations far beyond which have an interest.”

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/text/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=4117

Scumbag

06-20-2008, 05:23 AM

I don't see what the problem is with looking into the story a little more. While I don't believe that the towers were brought down by anything other than a jet fuel fire, I do doubt certain aspects of the official story. I don't believe that Atta's passport "just happened" to land on a pile of rubble unscathed. I don't believe that a jumbo jet travelling 500mph , in the hands of a hijacker, managed to hit the side of the Pentagon. Think about that. He should have hit the roof, not the wall. I also don't like the fact that anyone who even doubts the story at all is called a wacko. I think a lot of the so called 911 truthers have some very basic engineering facts wrong, but there are enough questions here that we should look at them.
This story has been looked into more closely than any other in the history of this country. Looking into it a little more is not going to prove any of the whacko conspiracy theories or disprove any of the facts.

I'm not surprised you don't beleive it was Atta's passport found at the scene. Neither do I.
The passport was that of Satam al-Suqami, one of the other hijackers. The authenticity of it is no longer in dispute. It was considered to be a plant but after expert examination was found to be manufactured using known al queda techniques. How it survived is anyone's guess. Some sort of freak event on a day full of freak events, which as unbelievable as the seem, actually happened. If you're interested, you can read it here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satam_al-Suqami#cite_note-3

Testimony was taken from hundreds of eye-witnesses who actually saw a commercial airliner (a boeing 757 not a Jumbo) flying close to the ground and hitting the side of the Pentagon. If you were not there and did not see the event and don't believe it happened that's your choice. Just don't start making up stories about what you believe MIGHT have happened and then try to pass it off as the truth which is what the idiot conspiracy theorists attempt to do.

People, such as disrupter and the other loonies on this site who get the facts wrong and then make up stories and scenarios to suit the false facts deserve to be labelled as whackos and also deserve the utmost contempt for the damage and division they and their ilk cause within this country.

Scumbag

06-20-2008, 05:31 AM

disrupter

06-20-2008, 09:00 AM

Scumbag

06-20-2008, 11:18 AM

The security parking cam has/had a wide angle lens,
so if the proposed plane dropped out of the sky it should be quite visible in the brilliantly clear sky that day.

But it isn't there,
so we are led to believe it skimmed the ground for a mile or more?

It is just an absurd proposal for an experienced trained pilot,

and these were supposedly novices who's instructors even commented 'they wouldn't make it' as pilots.

Come on America, Wake up.

Quit drinking the bullshit koolaid.
Smell the coffee & call a spade a spade.
So you admit that you base your whole conspiracy theory scenario on the point that because a security camera didn't capture an airplane hitting the Pentagon, it was not an airplane but something else.

In spite of the testimony of hundreds of eye-witnesses (ie those who were there and actually saw it...as distinct from the fact that you were not and did not) you still choose to deny it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon.

This'll be good for a laugh!..

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

So, disrupter, if it wasn't a commercial airliner that impacted with the Pentagon, what was it?

I don't want your opinion....I want irrefutable facts...

Show me FACTS!

disrupter

06-20-2008, 11:44 AM

Well for me i expect the laws of physics/light to remain fairly constant.

What medications do the drug companies or dealers have you hooked up on?

NOTE: It is interesting, scumbag is like a vampire or undead creature in that he only awakes under conditions of someone raising salient questions about the 911 storyline.
Like a robot that is designed to respond to only a single frequency.
A one trick pony perhaps?

ps. watch out for the BS,

The pony droppings.
RIPPPPP,
(pony fart)

Scumbag

06-20-2008, 12:18 PM

disrupter

06-20-2008, 01:09 PM

has anyone told you, you are cute but stupid?

entertaining, but not someone to bet the farm on.

Scumbag

06-20-2008, 01:37 PM

has anyone told you, you are cute but stupid?

entertaining, but not someone to bet the farm on.
Yeah, well thanks for the compliment..."entertaining, but not someone to bet the farm on."

What a relief!

Jesse Hemingway

06-24-2008, 11:09 PM

My Executive summary on 9/11

By: Jesse Hemingway

The unraveling of the 9/11 operation is very complex I would have to say an extremely complex operation. Here is my take on the scope of what happened. 9/11 was the crescendo moment stemming back to 1952(when the oil industry hand picked Eisenhower?s cabinet). We have all had time to evaluate, re-evaluate, and evaluate the facts and disinformation surrounding the spectacle of 9/11. I have no hesitation to state that 9/11 was the catalyst to gain control of the remaining enormous untapped oil reserves of Iraq and Iran as evidence is coming in day by day. Saudi Arabia had knowingly misrepresented their oil reserves during both the Bush and Clintons presidencies from 1988 ? 2001 and the reality is coming home to roost NOW. I personally view 9/11 and the events prior to September 11, 2001 and ongoing as three concentric circles; each of the circles represent the following elements of the operation. Each of the elements would have their own internal motives for participation never to be unearthed though.

1.. The oil industrial complex, bush administration, and PNAC

2..Elements within Israel; as means to ensure long term stability in that region and a source of long term finical gains

3.. Sunni faction of Islam (Saudi Arabia the Royal Family) to ensure their
on going wealth while destroying the Shiite faction that sits on the
remaining untapped oil reserves

The oil industry needed to gain control of the oil flow in that region
similar to the method Enron employed by manipulating energy prices in the United States. This was necessary to recapture wealth from China and India as their economies were expanding after 9/11 they became forced to pay triple the price for their oil. Israel would have been reduced to do the dirty work in the operation they had no resources to bring to the operation but willing to become part of it via elements within PNAC. Israel would gain a stake in the operation by wiring the World Trade Centers also the leverage of the knowledge of the scope of the operation (Mukasey and AIPAC) . The Sunnis wealth is dwindling as their oil reserves are rapidly decreasing; while facing the reality that the Shiites would increase in power in the region with their oil reserves. This would cause a serious change in the balance of power in that region while both Islamic sects considering each other as heretical doctrine and natural enemies for thousands of years. The United States would destroy the Sunnis natural enemy for them that's why they are presently stuck on the 70/30 split of the oil.

1.. The oil industrial complex, bush administration, and PNAC

"The IEA, employing a team of 25 analysts, is trying to shed light on some of the industry's best-kept secrets by assessing the health of major fields scattered from Venezuela and Mexico to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. The fields supply over two-thirds of daily world production."

"The findings won't be definitive. Big producers including Venezuela, Iran and China aren't cooperating, and others like Saudi Arabia typically treat the detailed production data of individual fields as closely guarded state secrets, so it's not clear how specific their contributions will be."

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121139527250011387-lMyQjAxMDI4MTIxMjMyOTI1Wj.html

In the chart titled in the above article ?Major Output? as of 2007 the total number of barrels of oil in reserves of the top 10 oil fields is 400 billon barrels. Of the 400 billion of the total reserves in the Saudi Arabia oil fields represent 216 billion barrels or 54%. During the 1990?s when oil was in the price range of $20.00 - $25.00 a barrel Saudi Arabia may have over stated their reserves to borrow against their oil reserves. If in fact this occurred for every 10% over stated by Saudi Arabia represents 5% of all major reserves or 5.4 billion barrels. I would also surmise that minimum over estimates would be in the minimum range of 30% do to the accuracy of the nature of oil a liquid underground would have a significant margin of error or deviation. At $25.00 a barrel that would yield a $405 billon over estimate in oil reserves by Saudi Arabia using a conservative figure of 30%.

After 9/11 and at the onset of the Iraq invasion by the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. Using strictly a business decision model these figures would make the invasion of Iraq a low risk venture. (That is excluding all loss of human life and human injuries) Since the total and complete mismanagement of this scheme the cost of oil has a direct relationship to the cost of the war. If in fact this was a real war on terror then the analogous cost of the oil and war would not have a correlated effect. This also has a strong indication that oil reserves have been inaccurate long before 9/11

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

More fuel:Further Evidence of Saudi Arabia's Oil Production Decline
Posted by Khebab on April 10, 2007 - 11:30am

Saudi Arabia's Decline means that the World's Production will not supply the Forecast Demand
The forecast in Figure 1 assumes that old small fields such as Khursaniyah (AFK), Khurais and Manifa can deliver huge increases in production. Figure 5 shows these forecasts to be overoptimistic (Matt Simmons would probably agree).

It is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia will ever produce more than 8.5 million bpd (Crude Oil and Lease Condensate). This means that if any supply disruption or sudden demand increase occurs, do not assume that Saudi Arabia can be ?called? upon to supply extra oil. Assume that oil price shocks are likely to occur starting the middle of this year as shown below.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2429

Saudi Arabian oil declines 8% in 2006
Posted by Stuart Staniford on March 2, 2007
The second and more natural interpretation is even more disturbing: the mighty Ghawar oil field is already in decline, and the Saudis don't want anyone to know.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325/

Ex-British Army Chief Confirms Peak Oil Motive for War; Praises Fraudulent Reconstruction Programs

by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Brigadier-General James Ellery CBE, the Foreign Office?s Senior Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad since 2003, confirmed the critical role of Iraqi oil reserves in potentially alleviating a ?world shortage? of conventional oil. The Iraq War has helped to head off what Brigadier Ellery described as ?the tide of Easternisation? ? a shift in global political and economic power toward China and India, to whom goes ?two thirds of the Middle East?s oil.?

After the 2004 transfer of authority to an interim Iraqi civilian administration, Brigadier Ellery set up and ran the 700-strong security framework operation in support of the US-funded Reconstruction of Iraq. His remarks were made as part of a presentation at the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London, sponsored by the Iraqi Youth Foundation, on 22nd April.

World Oil Shortage

?The reason that oil reached $117 a barrel last week?, he said, ?was less to do with security of supply? than World shortage.? He went on to emphasize the strategic significance of Iraqi petroleum fields in relation to the danger of production peaks being breached in major oil reserves around the world. ?Russia?s production has peaked at 10 million barrels per day; Africa has proved slow to yield affordable extra supplies ? from Sudan and Angola for example. Thus the only near-term potential increase will be from Iraq,? he said. Whether Iraq began ?favoring East or West? could therefore be ?de-stabilizing? not only ?within the region but to nations far beyond which have an interest.?

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/text/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=4117

If you follow this network back all three of the concentric circles had made dramatic inroads during the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia was matching dollar for dollar that the United States was covertly funding the Mujaheddin (Only a fool would believe that Osama Bin Laden flipped from his position as the director and conduit for the Saudi Arabia capital venture of matching dollar for dollar with the United States investment during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan operation. To become a born again Islamic fundamentalist nut Osama Bin Laden would have been killed by the real Islamic fundamentalists) {think about it please}. These entire funds were transferred through Israel to purchase the weapons for the Mujaheddin. The network existed they just need a plan to pull off any future heists. This means that the Mujaheddin had been infiltrated by Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia from day one. This would mean that the Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia are really Al-Qaeda.

Information I needed to come to My Executive summary on 9/11.
Recent Factual Data from the Saudi Arabia oil reserves to establish a clear motive for igniting such a horrendous act on the American people on 9/11/2001. We can now understand what the message was at Vice President Richard Cheney?s secret energy meetings ?Saudi Arabia is nearly out of their oil reserves? Iran and Iraq oil reserves have been manipulated since 1954 by United States intervention and have been kept off the market. So lets Getter done.

Abdullah Azzam was the real leader of the movement Osama Bin Laden was the front man for Mossad. CIA, and Saudi Arabia. Abdullah Azzam knew Osama Bin Laden worked for Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia this is why he was executed on November 24, 1989 because Abdullah Azzam could bring down the Osama Bin Laden front. The new and improved version of Al-Qaeda sponsored by Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia came to fruition. That is why attorney general Michael Mukasey (Mossad agent) prosecuted the first WTC bombers because he knew they were set up. Now Mukasey is his position to protect his true interests and make sure George W. Bush does not screw up the scheme

From 9/11 Commission Chapter 2.3
footnote: Abdullah Azzam was the real leader "Though Azzam had been considered number one in the MAK, by August 1988 Bin Ladin was clearly the leader (emir) of al Qaeda."

A decade of conflict in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989, gave Islamist extremists a rallying point and training field. A Communist government in Afghanistan gained power in 1978 but was unable to establish enduring control. At the end of 1979, the Soviet government sent in military units to ensure that the country would remain securely under Moscow's influence. The response was an Afghan national resistance movement that defeated Soviet forces.19

Young Muslims from around the world flocked to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in what was seen as a "holy war"-jihad-against an invader. The largest numbers came from the Middle East. Some were Saudis, and among them was Usama Bin Ladin.

Twenty-three when he arrived in Afghanistan in 1980, Bin Ladin was the seventeenth of 57 children of a Saudi construction magnate. Six feet five and thin, Bin Ladin appeared to be ungainly but was in fact quite athletic, skilled as a horseman, runner, climber, and soccer player. He had attended Abdul Aziz University in Saudi Arabia. By some accounts, he had been interested there in religious studies, inspired by tape recordings of fiery sermons by Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian and a disciple of Qutb. Bin Ladin was conspicuous among the volunteers not because he showed evidence of religious learning but because he had access to some of his family's huge fortune. Though he took part in at least one actual battle, he became known chiefly as a person who generously helped fund the anti-Soviet jihad.20

April 1988 brought victory for the Afghan jihad. Moscow declared it would pull its military forces out of Afghanistan within the next nine months. As the Soviets began their withdrawal, the jihad's leaders debated what to do next.

Bin Laden and Azzam agreed that the organization successfully created for Afghanistan should not be allowed to dissolve. They established what they called a base or foundation (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad.24 Though Azzam had been considered number one in the MAK, by August 1988 Bin Laden was clearly the leader (emir) of al Qaeda. This organization's structure included as its operating arms an intelligence component, a military committee, a financial committee, a political committee, and a committee in charge of media affairs and propaganda. It also had an Advisory Council (Shura) made up of Bin Laden's inner circle.25

Bin Laden's assumption of the helm of al Qaeda was evidence of his growing self-confidence and ambition. He soon made clear his desire for unchallenged control and for preparing the mujahideen to fight anywhere in the world. Azzam, by contrast, favored continuing to fight in Afghanistan until it had a true Islamist government. And, as a Palestinian, he saw Israel as the top priority for the next stage.26

Whether the dispute was about power, personal differences, or strategy, it ended on November 24, 1989, when a remotely controlled car bomb killed Azzam and both of his sons. The killers were assumed to be rival Egyptians. The outcome left Bin Laden indisputably in charge of what remained of the MAK and al Qaeda.27

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

The Shooting gallery: Compare and contrast U.S. government version

Compare the 9/11 Commissions explanation of Sheikh Abdullah Azzam assassination above and this article. It?s obvious someone is with holding information or planting disinformation you will to have thread the needle of the syllogism by yourself. The 9/11 commission relayed profoundly on information gathered through water boarding their witnesses.

"Bin Laden?s mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam is killed by a car bomb in Afghanistan. The killing is never solved. Azzam has no shortage of enemies. Suspects include the Mossad, CIA, Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the ISI, and bin Laden. The reason bin Laden is suspected is because he and Azzam were increasingly at odds over what approach to take since the Soviet Union had been driven from Afghanistan earlier in the year ."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a112489azzamkilled#a112489azzamki lled

This link makes the United States government version of the "Official" 9/11 commission report look like child's work.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

I would call this story below collaborating with terrorist

IDF choppers in service of drug cartel

Published on Sunday, April 27, 2008.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=6379

Source: YNetNews

American officials demand Israel provide explanations for how U.S.-made choppers sold to Israel ended up in service of Columbian drug cartel. Incident may cloud relations between countriesa

Another diplomatic incident threatens to taint U.S.-Israeli relations: The American government has recently demanded Israel clarify how five U.S.-made helicopters sold to Israel in the mid-70s found their way into the hands of a Columbian drug cartel.

An U.S. embassy official met with an Israeli foreign ministry official in Jerusalem several days ago, where he informed him that the American Foreign Ministry has requested the embassy to launch an investigation into the matter.
According to American sources, the military copters currently serve the drug mafia in the South American country.

Top diplomatic sources fear that this incident will once again heat-up tensions between Israel and the U.S. and cloud the strategic dialogue between the two countries, which is scheduled to renew in November, after talks were suspended for more than a year-and-a-half.

Kosher deal went sour

The dubious affair, which was already investigated by the Israeli Defense Ministry, and later turned over to the hands of the police, was uncovered about two years ago.

Investigators revealed that the Defense Ministry signed a deal with an Israeli company three years ago, contracting it to negotiate the sale of five IAF helicopters for a sum of USD 100,000 per aircraft.

The ministry permitted the choppers, of a MD 500 Defender model, be sold either to the Mexican federal police, or to the Spain firefighters department. However, contrary to the terms of the license, the copters ended up in Columbia, by way of Canadian mediators.

This article below makes me think, it also gives the crtical question who wired the WTC this front company would be perfect for that aspect of the operation; did this company Urban Moving Systems have access to any of the three World Trade Center buildings prior to there collapse on 9/11/2001. Urban Moving Systems would be an ideal front company to go into the World Trade Center buildings and wire them with high explosives using the moving company as cover for the operation.
I thought any type of building Maintenance Company would make an excellent cover for a covert operation of wiring the buildings with explosives. The moving company would make a great cover also just the fact that there must have been moving companies in those buildings all the time, creating a perfect cover. In covert operations the better you blend into the daily traffic of the target environment the better chance you are never to be noticed and go undetected.

With the moving company as the front, the infiltration possibilities into any building is mind boggling even with security escorts, at best case they would be unable to manage the security compromise. You could employee unsuspected laborers to move the crates not knowing what is in them while the agents are within the crates or the high explosives the laborers would not have a clue just moving heavy crates. The ability to work from the moving company front within the World Trade Centers gives the opportunity to work from an unmolested access. You would have all the time in the world to set charges place radio activated detonation devices.

Urban Moving Systems: the US-Israeli 9/11 Financial Nexus
Thursday, June 19, 2008 by Maasanova

With the global awakening of what really happened on 9/11 surging ahead at full steam, many people are now aware of facts such as prior government knowledge of the attacks, the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, all of the military and terror drills going on at the same time of the attacks, and the possibility that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, and not by fire.

What is not known by the majority of these people, but is as equally important as WTC 7, is the story of Urban Moving Systems. It is no surprise that the hidden history of Urban Moving Systems remains unknown to of the majority of the American population and even within the 9/11 truth community, since it's story was never included in the official 9/11 Commission Report, and has been absent from all of the popular 9/11 "truth movies."

Please watch this seven minute video for more details: in the link

So what exactly was Urban Moving Systems and how does it tie into 9/11?

"Dominick Suter, owner of the company Urban Moving Systems, flees the country to Israel. The FBI later tells ABC News, ?Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation.? Suter has been tied to the five Israeli agents caught filming the WTC attack. The FBI had questioned Suter around September 12, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. However, when the FBI returns a few days later, he is gone." [source: ABC News 6/21/2002]

http://undertheradarmedia.blogspot.com/2008/06/urban-moving-systems-us-israel-911.html

Here is additional information on that connection:
The Israeli Shipping Company that moved out of the WTC one week prior to 9/11

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/7305

My observation those two helicopters in the video below that enter the same area of the north and south tower nearly the same approach and timeframe prior to the collapses; again my observation the helicopters could have initiated a radio activated detonation device.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=911+Eyewitness+-+VO+ST+FR

What is extremely troubling in my observation of this video is that just a couple of seconds prior to each of World Trade Center towers collapse a helicopter comes in very close to the tops WTC towers. When you watch the video pay attention, just seconds prior to the beginning of the free fall, a helicopter comes in very close then the buildings fall. Both of the helicopters enter almost the exact same position of both the towers just seconds before the?The helicopters would have never known that the collapse were going to take place another 9/11 anomaly.

Saudi OIL on the big decline

On June 14, 2008 Saudi Arabia stated they would increase production by about 500,000 barrels a day yet once you read the article it is only 300,000 barrels a day. Then on June 22, 2008 after the oil summit they decreased their week old production headline notice to only 200,000 barrels a day. Surprise Surprise, they can not get that 500,000 barrels increase out of their oil fields. My calculations with their over stated oil inventory should have been able to get that 500,000 barrel a day increase. The facts are obvious their oil inventory is considerable less then I suspected and the oil fields are starting to dramatically decrease.

Now do you understand why 9/11 happened?

Plan Would Lift Saudi Oil Output
By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: June 14, 2008
Saudi Arabia, the world?s biggest oil exporter, is planning to increase its output next month by about a half-million barrels a day, according to analysts and oil traders who have been briefed by Saudi officials.

The increase could bring Saudi output to a production level of 10 million barrels a day, which, if sustained, would be the kingdom?s highest ever. The move was seen as a sign that the Saudis are becoming increasingly nervous about both the political and economic effect of high oil prices. In recent weeks, soaring fuel costs have incited demonstrations and protests from Italy to Indonesia.
Saudi Arabia is currently pumping 9.45 million barrels a day, which is an increase of about 300,000 barrels from last month.
While they are reaping record profits, the Saudis are concerned that today?s record prices might eventually damp economic growth and lead to lower oil demand, as is already happening in the United States and other developed countries. The current prices are also making alternative fuels more viable, threatening the long-term prospects of the oil-based economy.
President Bush visited Saudi Arabia twice this year, pleading with King Abdullah to step up production. While the Saudis resisted the calls then, arguing that the markets were well supplied, they seem to have since concluded that they needed to disrupt the momentum that has been building in commodity markets, sending prices higher.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/06/14/saudis-to-turn-on-the-pump/

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia 6/22/08 ? A hastily convened global energy summit meeting led by Saudi Arabia ended largely in disagreement on Sunday, with only a modest pledge of increased production by the Saudis and no resolution on what other practical steps should be taken to ease the crisis over soaring oil prices.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the energy summit meeting in Jidda.
The Saudis, who considered the meeting a success because of the high attendance, announced a production increase of 200,000 barrels a day and an expansion of their output capacity if needed in coming years.
But news of the immediate production increase had already been absorbed by the world market for oil. Some experts had anticipated that the Saudis might announce a bigger increase.
Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil exporter, is the only country with the ability to significantly increase production quickly.
By Monday morning in Singapore, the first oil market to react to the Saudi news, oil cost $135.72 a barrel, up slightly from $135.47 in New York on Friday.
Rather than finding areas of agreement, participants in the one-day meeting in this coastal city on the Red Sea illustrated the sharply diverging views on what has caused oil prices to double in the past year to the $130 to $140 per barrel range.
Consumer nations, led by the United States, Britain and Japan, see more supply as the answer to higher prices. But most producing nations are either reluctant to or unable to pump more oil, and they say a big reason for the price inflation is speculation. Everyone agreed that surging demand in the developing world was a major factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/world/middleeast/23saudi.html?em&ex=1214280000&en=d4ad76fff28aa319&ei=5087%0A

I have been doing a little math and you might want check this out.

Use this as your base line: Mar 13, 1986
Estimated proven reserves, in billions of barrels, as of Jan. 1, 1986
Saudi Arabia. . . 168.8 Kuwait . . . 89.8 Iran . . . 47.9 Iraq . . . 44.1 United Arab Emirates . . . 32.9 Venezuela . . . 25.6 Libya . . . 21.3 Nigeria . . . 16.6 Algeria . . . 8.8 Indonesia . . . 8.5

In 2006 let?s look at these same countries oil reserves:

Saudi Arabia..267 billion bbl Kuwait..104 (some sources say 48 billion - the difference is 5% of world reserves) Iran..132 Iraq..115 UAE.. 98 Venezuela.. 79 Libya.. 39 Nigeria.. 36 Algeria..12 Indonesia.. 4
Reference:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

Estimated Oil reserves increases up from March 13, 1986 - 2006 by %

Saudi Arabia..37% Kuwait..15% Iran..63% Iraq..62% UAE..66% Venezuela..68%
Libya..47% Nigeria..55% Algeria..33%

Indonesia is the only country that has decreased in their estimated oil reserves by <50%>

Report by: Robert L. Hirsch Titled ?The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production?

According to this report it totally contradicts the pervious information there is absolutely no evidence of the dramatic oil reserves increase from 1986 ? 2006. It indicates the complete opposite.

Page 1 ?last super giant fields were found in the 1960?s? on page 4 of this report there is a 60 year bar graph from 1940 - 2000 that breaks down annual oil consumption versus new oil field discovers. Link below:

http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf

This link below states the obvious that there have never been any controls built into the oil industry it is strictly run by estimation. The fact I do know is that the Bush Administration has bet at least 3 trillion dollars and untold human loss to take over Iraq's oil fields. If all the present information concerning the oil industry statistics is legitimate then the need to invade Iraq would be totally unnecessary.

http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Simmons_02-1.pdf

Scumbag

06-25-2008, 01:20 PM

My Executive summary on 9/11

By: Jesse Hemingway

The unraveling of the 9/11 operation is very complex I would have to say an extremely complex operation. Here is my take on the scope of what happened. 9/11 was the crescendo moment stemming back to 1952(when the oil industry hand picked Eisenhower?s cabinet). We have all had time to evaluate, re-evaluate, and evaluate the facts and disinformation surrounding the spectacle of 9/11. I have no hesitation to state that 9/11 was the catalyst to gain control of the remaining enormous untapped oil reserves of Iraq and Iran as evidence is coming in day by day. Saudi Arabia had knowingly misrepresented their oil reserves during both the Bush and Clintons presidencies from 1988 ? 2001 and the reality is coming home to roost NOW. I personally view 9/11 and the events prior to September 11, 2001 and ongoing as three concentric circles; each of the circles represent the following elements of the operation. Each of the elements would have their own internal motives for participation never to be unearthed though.

1.. The oil industrial complex, bush administration, and PNAC

2..Elements within Israel; as means to ensure long term stability in that region and a source of long term finical gains

3.. Sunni faction of Islam (Saudi Arabia the Royal Family) to ensure their
on going wealth while destroying the Shiite faction that sits on the
remaining untapped oil reserves

The oil industry needed to gain control of the oil flow in that region
similar to the method Enron employed by manipulating energy prices in the United States. This was necessary to recapture wealth from China and India as their economies were expanding after 9/11 they became forced to pay triple the price for their oil. Israel would have been reduced to do the dirty work in the operation they had no resources to bring to the operation but willing to become part of it via elements within PNAC. Israel would gain a stake in the operation by wiring the World Trade Centers also the leverage of the knowledge of the scope of the operation (Mukasey and AIPAC) . The Sunnis wealth is dwindling as their oil reserves are rapidly decreasing; while facing the reality that the Shiites would increase in power in the region with their oil reserves. This would cause a serious change in the balance of power in that region while both Islamic sects considering each other as heretical doctrine and natural enemies for thousands of years. The United States would destroy the Sunnis natural enemy for them that's why they are presently stuck on the 70/30 split of the oil.

1.. The oil industrial complex, bush administration, and PNAC

"The IEA, employing a team of 25 analysts, is trying to shed light on some of the industry's best-kept secrets by assessing the health of major fields scattered from Venezuela and Mexico to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. The fields supply over two-thirds of daily world production."

"The findings won't be definitive. Big producers including Venezuela, Iran and China aren't cooperating, and others like Saudi Arabia typically treat the detailed production data of individual fields as closely guarded state secrets, so it's not clear how specific their contributions will be."

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121139527250011387-lMyQjAxMDI4MTIxMjMyOTI1Wj.html

In the chart titled in the above article ?Major Output? as of 2007 the total number of barrels of oil in reserves of the top 10 oil fields is 400 billon barrels. Of the 400 billion of the total reserves in the Saudi Arabia oil fields represent 216 billion barrels or 54%. During the 1990?s when oil was in the price range of $20.00 - $25.00 a barrel Saudi Arabia may have over stated their reserves to borrow against their oil reserves. If in fact this occurred for every 10% over stated by Saudi Arabia represents 5% of all major reserves or 5.4 billion barrels. I would also surmise that minimum over estimates would be in the minimum range of 30% do to the accuracy of the nature of oil a liquid underground would have a significant margin of error or deviation. At $25.00 a barrel that would yield a $405 billon over estimate in oil reserves by Saudi Arabia using a conservative figure of 30%.

After 9/11 and at the onset of the Iraq invasion by the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. Using strictly a business decision model these figures would make the invasion of Iraq a low risk venture. (That is excluding all loss of human life and human injuries) Since the total and complete mismanagement of this scheme the cost of oil has a direct relationship to the cost of the war. If in fact this was a real war on terror then the analogous cost of the oil and war would not have a correlated effect. This also has a strong indication that oil reserves have been inaccurate long before 9/11

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

More fuel:Further Evidence of Saudi Arabia's Oil Production Decline
Posted by Khebab on April 10, 2007 - 11:30am

Saudi Arabia's Decline means that the World's Production will not supply the Forecast Demand
The forecast in Figure 1 assumes that old small fields such as Khursaniyah (AFK), Khurais and Manifa can deliver huge increases in production. Figure 5 shows these forecasts to be overoptimistic (Matt Simmons would probably agree).

It is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia will ever produce more than 8.5 million bpd (Crude Oil and Lease Condensate). This means that if any supply disruption or sudden demand increase occurs, do not assume that Saudi Arabia can be ?called? upon to supply extra oil. Assume that oil price shocks are likely to occur starting the middle of this year as shown below.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2429

Saudi Arabian oil declines 8% in 2006
Posted by Stuart Staniford on March 2, 2007
The second and more natural interpretation is even more disturbing: the mighty Ghawar oil field is already in decline, and the Saudis don't want anyone to know.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325/

Ex-British Army Chief Confirms Peak Oil Motive for War; Praises Fraudulent Reconstruction Programs

by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Brigadier-General James Ellery CBE, the Foreign Office?s Senior Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad since 2003, confirmed the critical role of Iraqi oil reserves in potentially alleviating a ?world shortage? of conventional oil. The Iraq War has helped to head off what Brigadier Ellery described as ?the tide of Easternisation? ? a shift in global political and economic power toward China and India, to whom goes ?two thirds of the Middle East?s oil.?

After the 2004 transfer of authority to an interim Iraqi civilian administration, Brigadier Ellery set up and ran the 700-strong security framework operation in support of the US-funded Reconstruction of Iraq. His remarks were made as part of a presentation at the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London, sponsored by the Iraqi Youth Foundation, on 22nd April.

World Oil Shortage

?The reason that oil reached $117 a barrel last week?, he said, ?was less to do with security of supply? than World shortage.? He went on to emphasize the strategic significance of Iraqi petroleum fields in relation to the danger of production peaks being breached in major oil reserves around the world. ?Russia?s production has peaked at 10 million barrels per day; Africa has proved slow to yield affordable extra supplies ? from Sudan and Angola for example. Thus the only near-term potential increase will be from Iraq,? he said. Whether Iraq began ?favoring East or West? could therefore be ?de-stabilizing? not only ?within the region but to nations far beyond which have an interest.?

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/text/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=4117

If you follow this network back all three of the concentric circles had made dramatic inroads during the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia was matching dollar for dollar that the United States was covertly funding the Mujaheddin (Only a fool would believe that Osama Bin Laden flipped from his position as the director and conduit for the Saudi Arabia capital venture of matching dollar for dollar with the United States investment during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan operation. To become a born again Islamic fundamentalist nut Osama Bin Laden would have been killed by the real Islamic fundamentalists) {think about it please}. These entire funds were transferred through Israel to purchase the weapons for the Mujaheddin. The network existed they just need a plan to pull off any future heists. This means that the Mujaheddin had been infiltrated by Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia from day one. This would mean that the Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia are really Al-Qaeda.

Information I needed to come to My Executive summary on 9/11.
Recent Factual Data from the Saudi Arabia oil reserves to establish a clear motive for igniting such a horrendous act on the American people on 9/11/2001. We can now understand what the message was at Vice President Richard Cheney?s secret energy meetings ?Saudi Arabia is nearly out of their oil reserves? Iran and Iraq oil reserves have been manipulated since 1954 by United States intervention and have been kept off the market. So lets Getter done.

Abdullah Azzam was the real leader of the movement Osama Bin Laden was the front man for Mossad. CIA, and Saudi Arabia. Abdullah Azzam knew Osama Bin Laden worked for Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia this is why he was executed on November 24, 1989 because Abdullah Azzam could bring down the Osama Bin Laden front. The new and improved version of Al-Qaeda sponsored by Mossad, CIA, and Saudi Arabia came to fruition. That is why attorney general Michael Mukasey (Mossad agent) prosecuted the first WTC bombers because he knew they were set up. Now Mukasey is his position to protect his true interests and make sure George W. Bush does not screw up the scheme

From 9/11 Commission Chapter 2.3
footnote: Abdullah Azzam was the real leader "Though Azzam had been considered number one in the MAK, by August 1988 Bin Ladin was clearly the leader (emir) of al Qaeda."

A decade of conflict in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989, gave Islamist extremists a rallying point and training field. A Communist government in Afghanistan gained power in 1978 but was unable to establish enduring control. At the end of 1979, the Soviet government sent in military units to ensure that the country would remain securely under Moscow's influence. The response was an Afghan national resistance movement that defeated Soviet forces.19

Young Muslims from around the world flocked to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in what was seen as a "holy war"-jihad-against an invader. The largest numbers came from the Middle East. Some were Saudis, and among them was Usama Bin Ladin.

Twenty-three when he arrived in Afghanistan in 1980, Bin Ladin was the seventeenth of 57 children of a Saudi construction magnate. Six feet five and thin, Bin Ladin appeared to be ungainly but was in fact quite athletic, skilled as a horseman, runner, climber, and soccer player. He had attended Abdul Aziz University in Saudi Arabia. By some accounts, he had been interested there in religious studies, inspired by tape recordings of fiery sermons by Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian and a disciple of Qutb. Bin Ladin was conspicuous among the volunteers not because he showed evidence of religious learning but because he had access to some of his family's huge fortune. Though he took part in at least one actual battle, he became known chiefly as a person who generously helped fund the anti-Soviet jihad.20

April 1988 brought victory for the Afghan jihad. Moscow declared it would pull its military forces out of Afghanistan within the next nine months. As the Soviets began their withdrawal, the jihad's leaders debated what to do next.

Bin Laden and Azzam agreed that the organization successfully created for Afghanistan should not be allowed to dissolve. They established what they called a base or foundation (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad.24 Though Azzam had been considered number one in the MAK, by August 1988 Bin Laden was clearly the leader (emir) of al Qaeda. This organization's structure included as its operating arms an intelligence component, a military committee, a financial committee, a political committee, and a committee in charge of media affairs and propaganda. It also had an Advisory Council (Shura) made up of Bin Laden's inner circle.25

Bin Laden's assumption of the helm of al Qaeda was evidence of his growing self-confidence and ambition. He soon made clear his desire for unchallenged control and for preparing the mujahideen to fight anywhere in the world. Azzam, by contrast, favored continuing to fight in Afghanistan until it had a true Islamist government. And, as a Palestinian, he saw Israel as the top priority for the next stage.26

Whether the dispute was about power, personal differences, or strategy, it ended on November 24, 1989, when a remotely controlled car bomb killed Azzam and both of his sons. The killers were assumed to be rival Egyptians. The outcome left Bin Laden indisputably in charge of what remained of the MAK and al Qaeda.27

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

The Shooting gallery: Compare and contrast U.S. government version

Compare the 9/11 Commissions explanation of Sheikh Abdullah Azzam assassination above and this article. It?s obvious someone is with holding information or planting disinformation you will to have thread the needle of the syllogism by yourself. The 9/11 commission relayed profoundly on information gathered through water boarding their witnesses.

"Bin Laden?s mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam is killed by a car bomb in Afghanistan. The killing is never solved. Azzam has no shortage of enemies. Suspects include the Mossad, CIA, Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the ISI, and bin Laden. The reason bin Laden is suspected is because he and Azzam were increasingly at odds over what approach to take since the Soviet Union had been driven from Afghanistan earlier in the year ."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a112489azzamkilled#a112489azzamki lled

This link makes the United States government version of the "Official" 9/11 commission report look like child's work.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

I would call this story below collaborating with terrorist

IDF choppers in service of drug cartel

Published on Sunday, April 27, 2008.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=6379

Source: YNetNews

American officials demand Israel provide explanations for how U.S.-made choppers sold to Israel ended up in service of Columbian drug cartel. Incident may cloud relations between countriesa

Another diplomatic incident threatens to taint U.S.-Israeli relations: The American government has recently demanded Israel clarify how five U.S.-made helicopters sold to Israel in the mid-70s found their way into the hands of a Columbian drug cartel.

An U.S. embassy official met with an Israeli foreign ministry official in Jerusalem several days ago, where he informed him that the American Foreign Ministry has requested the embassy to launch an investigation into the matter.
According to American sources, the military copters currently serve the drug mafia in the South American country.

Top diplomatic sources fear that this incident will once again heat-up tensions between Israel and the U.S. and cloud the strategic dialogue between the two countries, which is scheduled to renew in November, after talks were suspended for more than a year-and-a-half.

Kosher deal went sour

The dubious affair, which was already investigated by the Israeli Defense Ministry, and later turned over to the hands of the police, was uncovered about two years ago.

Investigators revealed that the Defense Ministry signed a deal with an Israeli company three years ago, contracting it to negotiate the sale of five IAF helicopters for a sum of USD 100,000 per aircraft.

The ministry permitted the choppers, of a MD 500 Defender model, be sold either to the Mexican federal police, or to the Spain firefighters department. However, contrary to the terms of the license, the copters ended up in Columbia, by way of Canadian mediators.

This article below makes me think, it also gives the crtical question who wired the WTC this front company would be perfect for that aspect of the operation; did this company Urban Moving Systems have access to any of the three World Trade Center buildings prior to there collapse on 9/11/2001. Urban Moving Systems would be an ideal front company to go into the World Trade Center buildings and wire them with high explosives using the moving company as cover for the operation.
I thought any type of building Maintenance Company would make an excellent cover for a covert operation of wiring the buildings with explosives. The moving company would make a great cover also just the fact that there must have been moving companies in those buildings all the time, creating a perfect cover. In covert operations the better you blend into the daily traffic of the target environment the better chance you are never to be noticed and go undetected.

With the moving company as the front, the infiltration possibilities into any building is mind boggling even with security escorts, at best case they would be unable to manage the security compromise. You could employee unsuspected laborers to move the crates not knowing what is in them while the agents are within the crates or the high explosives the laborers would not have a clue just moving heavy crates. The ability to work from the moving company front within the World Trade Centers gives the opportunity to work from an unmolested access. You would have all the time in the world to set charges place radio activated detonation devices.

Urban Moving Systems: the US-Israeli 9/11 Financial Nexus
Thursday, June 19, 2008 by Maasanova

With the global awakening of what really happened on 9/11 surging ahead at full steam, many people are now aware of facts such as prior government knowledge of the attacks, the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, all of the military and terror drills going on at the same time of the attacks, and the possibility that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, and not by fire.

What is not known by the majority of these people, but is as equally important as WTC 7, is the story of Urban Moving Systems. It is no surprise that the hidden history of Urban Moving Systems remains unknown to of the majority of the American population and even within the 9/11 truth community, since it's story was never included in the official 9/11 Commission Report, and has been absent from all of the popular 9/11 "truth movies."

Please watch this seven minute video for more details: in the link

So what exactly was Urban Moving Systems and how does it tie into 9/11?

"Dominick Suter, owner of the company Urban Moving Systems, flees the country to Israel. The FBI later tells ABC News, ?Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation.? Suter has been tied to the five Israeli agents caught filming the WTC attack. The FBI had questioned Suter around September 12, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. However, when the FBI returns a few days later, he is gone." [source: ABC News 6/21/2002]

http://undertheradarmedia.blogspot.com/2008/06/urban-moving-systems-us-israel-911.html

My observation those two helicopters in the video below that enter the same area of the north and south tower nearly the same approach and timeframe prior to the collapses; again my observation the helicopters could have initiated a radio activated detonation device.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=911+Eyewitness+-+VO+ST+FR

What is extremely troubling in my observation of this video is that just a couple of seconds prior to each of World Trade Center towers collapse a helicopter comes in very close to the tops WTC towers. When you watch the video pay attention, just seconds prior to the beginning of the free fall, a helicopter comes in very close then the buildings fall. Both of the helicopters enter almost the exact same position of both the towers just seconds before the?The helicopters would have never known that the collapse were going to take place another 9/11 anomaly.

Saudi OIL on the big decline

On June 14, 2008 Saudi Arabia stated they would increase production by about 500,000 barrels a day yet once you read the article it is only 300,000 barrels a day. Then on June 22, 2008 after the oil summit they decreased their week old production headline notice to only 200,000 barrels a day. Surprise Surprise, they can not get that 500,000 barrels increase out of their oil fields. My calculations with their over stated oil inventory should have been able to get that 500,000 barrel a day increase. The facts are obvious their oil inventory is considerable less then I suspected and the oil fields are starting to dramatically decrease.

Now do you understand why 9/11 happened?

Plan Would Lift Saudi Oil Output
By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: June 14, 2008
Saudi Arabia, the world?s biggest oil exporter, is planning to increase its output next month by about a half-million barrels a day, according to analysts and oil traders who have been briefed by Saudi officials.

The increase could bring Saudi output to a production level of 10 million barrels a day, which, if sustained, would be the kingdom?s highest ever. The move was seen as a sign that the Saudis are becoming increasingly nervous about both the political and economic effect of high oil prices. In recent weeks, soaring fuel costs have incited demonstrations and protests from Italy to Indonesia.
Saudi Arabia is currently pumping 9.45 million barrels a day, which is an increase of about 300,000 barrels from last month.
While they are reaping record profits, the Saudis are concerned that today?s record prices might eventually damp economic growth and lead to lower oil demand, as is already happening in the United States and other developed countries. The current prices are also making alternative fuels more viable, threatening the long-term prospects of the oil-based economy.
President Bush visited Saudi Arabia twice this year, pleading with King Abdullah to step up production. While the Saudis resisted the calls then, arguing that the markets were well supplied, they seem to have since concluded that they needed to disrupt the momentum that has been building in commodity markets, sending prices higher.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/06/14/saudis-to-turn-on-the-pump/

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia 6/22/08 ? A hastily convened global energy summit meeting led by Saudi Arabia ended largely in disagreement on Sunday, with only a modest pledge of increased production by the Saudis and no resolution on what other practical steps should be taken to ease the crisis over soaring oil prices.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the energy summit meeting in Jidda.
The Saudis, who considered the meeting a success because of the high attendance, announced a production increase of 200,000 barrels a day and an expansion of their output capacity if needed in coming years.
But news of the immediate production increase had already been absorbed by the world market for oil. Some experts had anticipated that the Saudis might announce a bigger increase.
Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil exporter, is the only country with the ability to significantly increase production quickly.
By Monday morning in Singapore, the first oil market to react to the Saudi news, oil cost $135.72 a barrel, up slightly from $135.47 in New York on Friday.
Rather than finding areas of agreement, participants in the one-day meeting in this coastal city on the Red Sea illustrated the sharply diverging views on what has caused oil prices to double in the past year to the $130 to $140 per barrel range.
Consumer nations, led by the United States, Britain and Japan, see more supply as the answer to higher prices. But most producing nations are either reluctant to or unable to pump more oil, and they say a big reason for the price inflation is speculation. Everyone agreed that surging demand in the developing world was a major factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/world/middleeast/23saudi.html?em&ex=1214280000&en=d4ad76fff28aa319&ei=5087%0A

I have been doing a little math and you might want check this out.

Use this as your base line: Mar 13, 1986
Estimated proven reserves, in billions of barrels, as of Jan. 1, 1986
Saudi Arabia. . . 168.8 Kuwait . . . 89.8 Iran . . . 47.9 Iraq . . . 44.1 United Arab Emirates . . . 32.9 Venezuela . . . 25.6 Libya . . . 21.3 Nigeria . . . 16.6 Algeria . . . 8.8 Indonesia . . . 8.5

In 2006 let?s look at these same countries oil reserves:

Saudi Arabia..267 billion bbl Kuwait..104 (some sources say 48 billion - the difference is 5% of world reserves) Iran..132 Iraq..115 UAE.. 98 Venezuela.. 79 Libya.. 39 Nigeria.. 36 Algeria..12 Indonesia.. 4
Reference:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

Estimated Oil reserves increases up from March 13, 1986 - 2006 by %

Saudi Arabia..37% Kuwait..15% Iran..63% Iraq..62% UAE..66% Venezuela..68%
Libya..47% Nigeria..55% Algeria..33%

Indonesia is the only country that has decreased in their estimated oil reserves by <50%>

Report by: Robert L. Hirsch Titled ?The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production?

According to this report it totally contradicts the pervious information there is absolutely no evidence of the dramatic oil reserves increase from 1986 ? 2006. It indicates the complete opposite.

Page 1 ?last super giant fields were found in the 1960?s? on page 4 of this report there is a 60 year bar graph from 1940 - 2000 that breaks down annual oil consumption versus new oil field discovers. Link below:

http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf

This link below states the obvious that there have never been any controls built into the oil industry it is strictly run by estimation. The fact I do know is that the Bush Administration has bet at least 3 trillion dollars and untold human loss to take over Iraq's oil fields. If all the present information concerning the oil industry statistics is legitimate then the need to invade Iraq would be totally unnecessary.

http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Simmons_02-1.pdf
Congratulations, junior!
You figured ot out!
Can you explain it to me again?
I just don't quite get the connection between the Iraq war and the increase in oil reserves in just about every othe country except Iraq!

Jesse Hemingway

06-25-2008, 01:45 PM

Congratulations, junior!
You figured ot out!
Can you explain it to me again?
I just don't quite get the connection!

Start from here some where between 1986 -2006 I would suspect 1989 time frame that the world oil inventories grew in size yet there weren’t any new discoveries to back up the increases. The reality is that Saudi's presently have about 80 billion in reserves and decreasing indicated by there inability to increase production they have crossed their half way point. Yet there books show 267 billion barrels in reserves if that was true they could increase output production by 30 million barrels a day and not break a sweat. Yet they can barley increase by 200,000 barrels a day.

Bottom line when ever these oil inventory numbers increased with out a real increase in the real oil reserves all they did was they just manufactured wealth. They can borrow money from their oil reserves; when you double the collateral you are creating something that does not exists while you’re borrowing against that illusion. BIG TIME STEALING

The point I am getting at 9/11 had to do with adjusting the oil inventory books that had gotten out of control during Bush and Clintons years in office.

The fact that the Shia in Iran and Iraq are sitting on the real oil reserves would be a disaster for the Sunnis and Israel those two and the United States have been screwing over the Shia for well over 50 years. The Shia do not need nukes the have all the real oil and the money that goes with it.

I have been doing a little math and you might want check this out.

Use this as your base line: Mar 13, 1986
Estimated proven reserves, in billions of barrels, as of Jan. 1, 1986
Saudi Arabia. . . 168.8 Kuwait . . . 89.8 Iran . . . 47.9 Iraq . . . 44.1 United Arab Emirates . . . 32.9 Venezuela . . . 25.6 Libya . . . 21.3 Nigeria . . . 16.6 Algeria . . . 8.8 Indonesia . . . 8.5

In 2006 let?s look at these same countries oil reserves:

Saudi Arabia..267 billion bbl Kuwait..104 (some sources say 48 billion - the difference is 5% of world reserves) Iran..132 Iraq..115 UAE.. 98 Venezuela.. 79 Libya.. 39 Nigeria.. 36 Algeria..12 Indonesia.. 4
Reference:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

Estimated Oil reserves increases up from March 13, 1986 - 2006 by %

Saudi Arabia..37% Kuwait..15% Iran..63% Iraq..62% UAE..66% Venezuela..68%
Libya..47% Nigeria..55% Algeria..33%

Indonesia is the only country that has decreased in their estimated oil reserves by <50%>

Report by: Robert L. Hirsch Titled ?The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production?

According to this report it totally contradicts the pervious information there is absolutely no evidence of the dramatic oil reserves increase from 1986 ? 2006. It indicates the complete opposite.

Page 1 ?last super giant fields were found in the 1960?s? on page 4 of this report there is a 60 year bar graph from 1940 - 2000 that breaks down annual oil consumption versus new oil field discovers. Link below:

http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirs...Production.pdf

This link below states the obvious that there have never been any controls built into the oil industry it is strictly run by estimation. The fact I do know is that the Bush Administration has bet at least 3 trillion dollars and untold human loss to take over Iraq's oil fields. If all the present information concerning the oil industry statistics is legitimate then the need to invade Iraq would be totally unnecessary.

http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Simmons_02-1.pdf

Deadscott

07-04-2008, 05:53 AM

A lot of kool-aid drinkes here I see.

Jesse Hemingway

07-06-2008, 12:51 PM

Do you need forensic evidence this link below has way more there then what our tax dollars every would yield even proves the government weak ass attempt at brain washing the entire world. The government now must count on the MSM to maintain this fraud called 9/11; interesting that Tim Russets was turned into to divine being witnessed by the grandeur of his funeral service. Tim Russet worked in television where nothing is real everything is scripted total manipulation so what was the message by the opulent funeral service take the Fucking lie to the grave and we will handle the rest?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders

3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure

12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises

13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

Scumbag

07-08-2008, 07:40 AM

Jesse Hemingway

07-12-2008, 02:11 PM

Here are some videos from Kevin Barrett for Congress web site all the credit should go to Kevin and the creators for this information. I just think it may help anyone looking for sources to evaluate the 9/11 puzzle. I am very comfortable in my observations and conclusions surrounding 9/11 yet each individual must cross that threshold on their own. The United States of America offical government version of what happened on 9/11 is extremely limited and I have posted those also for review on other post.

http://www.barrettforcongress.us/

9/11: Press For Truth

by the Jersey Girls

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

John Albanese

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9007079754355711945

Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut

by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Loose Change Final Cut

by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

9/11 Movies on the WTC

September 11 Revisited: Were Explosives Used?

by Dustin Mugford

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014

9/11 Mysteries

Sophia

http://www.truveo.com/911-Mysteries-Part-1-Demolitions/id/2332896255

Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

Jesse Hemingway

07-15-2008, 10:48 PM

The Mistake Department: One Example of Why American Foreign Policy is a Disaster

By J. Michael Springmann
The Public Record
Tuesday, July 15, 2008

After airplanes flew into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, The Los Angeles Times reported that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers got their U.S. visas from the American Consulate General at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a consulate where I had served as chief of the Visa Section.

What The Los Angeles Times did not report was what I had told their Washington, D.C. bureau after reading the story: (1) that the Jeddah onsulate was not a State Department post but an intelligence services operation; (2) that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) routinely demanded (and got) visas for sleazy characters with no ties to either their home country or Saudi Arabia; (3) that these vile people were terrorists recruited by U.S. intelligence officers along with Osama bin Laden, then a CIA asset.

With the help of non-State Department officials, i.e., Consul General, Jay Philip Freres (retired and living in Clearwater, Fla.), the head of the Political/Economic Section, Eric L. Qualkenbush (retired and living in Findlay, Ohio), the Political Officer, Henry Ensher (currently assigned to D.C. and living in McLean, Va.), a "Commercial Officer", Paul Arvid Tveit (retired and also living in McLean, Va.), the Chief of the Consular Section, Justice (given name) Stevens (whereabouts unknown), and a "part-time" Consular officer, Andy Weber (last seen on the PBS program "Bio-Terror"), they were sent to America for training in blowing things up and shooting things down. Afterwards, they were sent on to Afghanistan to murder Soviet soldiers.

It seems pretty clear that they and people that they had trained are now pursuing their own goals (and most likely U.S. foreign policy interests) in helping destabilize Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their next target may be Iran.

http://www.pubrecord.org/component/content/201.html?task=view

This section below is from the 9/11 commission report they forgot to disclose who was running U.S. offices for visas in Jeddah yet everyone knew where to go. I would have to say that looking at the above article and the 9/11 commission report combined with all the other security and management breeches within the United States official version of 9/11this report was a complete disinformation operation. Jeddah was the United States visas office of choice by the terrorist, the Jeddah office was operated by the CIA and had long standing track record of corruption.
By the time operatives for the planes operation were picked in mid-2000, some of them had been training in Afghanistan for months, others were just arriving for the first time, and still others may have been returning after prior visits to the camps. According to KSM, Bin Ladin would travel to the camps to deliver lectures and meet the trainees personally. If Bin Ladin believed a trainee held promise for a special operation, that trainee would be invited to the al Qaeda leader's compound at Tarnak Farms for further meetings.103

KSM claims that Bin Ladin could assess new trainees very quickly, in about ten minutes, and that many of the 9/11 hijackers were selected in this manner. Bin Ladin, assisted by Atef, personally chose all the future muscle hijackers for the planes operation, primarily between the summer of 2000 and April 2001. Upon choosing a trainee, Bin Ladin would ask him to swear loyalty for a suicide operation. After the selection and oath-swearing, the operative would be sent to KSM for training and the filming of a martyrdom video, a function KSM supervised as head of al Qaeda's media committee.104

KSM sent the muscle hijacker recruits on to Saudi Arabia to obtain U.S. visas. He gave them money (about $2,000 each) and instructed them to return to Afghanistan for more training after obtaining the visas. At this early stage, the operatives were not told details about the operation. The majority of the Saudi muscle hijackers obtained U.S. visas in Jeddah or Riyadh between September and November of 2000.105

KSM told potential hijackers to acquire new "clean" passports in their home countries before applying for a U.S. visa. This was to avoid raising suspicion about previous travel to countries where al Qaeda operated. Fourteen of the 19 hijackers, including nine Saudi muscle hijackers, obtained new passports. Some of these passports were then likely doctored by the al Qaeda passport division in Kandahar, which would add or erase entry and exit stamps to create "false trails" in the passports.106

From chapter 7 section103 in the link below
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

Jesse Hemingway

07-28-2008, 02:51 PM

A nostalgic RUSE down memory lane or through the looking glass.

click the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH4ZK3eltvY&eurl=http://factsnotfairies.blogspot.com/2008/07/jews-caused-911-to-start-war-against.html

CB_Brooklyn

07-31-2008, 02:35 AM

Not many know that a major hurricane - Hurricane Erin - was in the Atlantic Ocean in September of 2001. In fact, Erin was closest to NYC, and at its largest size, on 9/11 itself. But the TV news networks had little reporting on this hurricane. Contrary to Erin, however, Hurricane Katrina had virtually 24 hour coverage, even before it hit land. Interestingly, Erin was stronger than Katrina the day before 9/11. So why didn’t the media cover Erin, say, on September 10? The astronauts in the space station commented on the WTC smoke plume, but made no mention of the monstrous hurricane next to it. How come? Those interested in learning the secret between hurricanes and Tesla Coils should see Dr Judy Wood’s new paper “9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects”. She presents evidence suggesting Erin was part of the mechanism used to turn the Twin Towers to dust. The paper is chock full of photos and analysis and is highly recommended.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin

Notice how Erin makes a u-turn away from NYC right after 9/11:

http://drjudywood.com/pics/080601/erinpr1.gif

Magnetometer data from alaska.edu shows the earth's magnetic field shifted with every 9/11 "event". This includes the plane-shaped holes appearing in the towers. The World Trade Center was destroyed with directed energy weapons. See this analysis by former Clemson University Professor of Mechanical Engineering Dr Judy Wood for info on the magnetometer data:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin5.html

Soupnazi

08-05-2008, 03:07 PM

I can back what I say with more quotes, sources, links, math, videos, etc....

9/11 was a cover-up for a secret coup behind the scenes.

and that's according to Russian military inteligence and the intelligence agencies of several nations.

The WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions, and that is verifiable and provable. Yes, there were planes, but they were only cover for the explosions and to provide a "believable cause".

If this seems fantastic to you, then you are now in the minority internationally.
Be angry.

The russian military has no evidence of this. Despite what they may have reported do not forget hey are brilliant propagandists and experts at disinformation as well in other words they lie A LOT and have no credibility.

There was no controlled demolition not one shred of evidence supports such a theory in fact it is proven absurd for there to have been controlled demolitions which brought down the buildings. There was no conspiracy beyond he conspiracy of the foreign terrorists who hijacked the planes and attacked us there was no government involvement.

BTW Oswald acted alone and assasinated JFK , we landed on the moon all the times we said we did and hat crashed at roswell was a weather balloon. Oh yeah and elvis has been dead for decades

Soupnazi

08-05-2008, 03:11 PM

This might interest everyone.

New York firemen DID find explosives in the WTC buildings.

Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR

They FOUND no explosives in the building period , there were secondary explosions going off caused by he fire and that is quite normal. Also many people heard these explosions as well as the collapsing of the building , they heard LOUD booms and of course anyone even a fire fighter might use the words bomb or explosion when describing these sounds but this is not evidence of controlled demo which would have been next to impossible.Not one survivor of the 911 attacks has made any such claim about specifically hearing bombs go off in fact he fire fighters whose radio transmissions are used to support this bizzarre claim flat out describe such claims as lies.

Soupnazi

08-05-2008, 03:15 PM

I can think anything I want to think about, the united states government has changed their answers many times concern events on 9/11 so why would I believe the government. Omissions are they same as lying like the time Rice failed to mention the July 2001 warnings. Al-CIA-Da there stronger then before 9/11 so whats wrong with this picture.

Did you know that some professional pilots attempted to simulate the crash at the pentagon? Using a flight simulator with all the flight data from the alleged plane that hit the pentagon and the computer in the simulator could not do what the airplane did. The simulator crashs every time hundreds of feet before the pentagon the flight simulator can be manipulated easier then a real plane. In a virtual sense it was impossible to do yet again the government's story is bull cht.

There is simply no truth to this honest professional pilots know that the three crashes on 911 were easy to accomplish and crashing a plane in such a manner is very easy . Flying in general is easy it is inclement weather , take offs , and landings which require extensive training and terrorists had none of those factors to worry about . Get over it already the plane hit the pentagon that is fact too many witnesses saw it and helped clean up the mess

Soupnazi

08-05-2008, 03:24 PM

Your right and many of people heard explosions prior to the WTC coming down yet these individuals were not allowed to testify during the 9/11 commission hearings. Here is a link to the people you honor:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/

There is a picture taken on 9/27/07 at the WTC and piece of heavy equipment removing structural steel that was still nearly white hot. A Boeing 757 carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could not transferee that much energy in an open fire environment. Even if someone filled a containment area with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel placed that piece of structural steel across the burning containment area the structural steel would not be white hot 17 days later.

To accept the government’s version of the jet fuel causing the structural failure then why don’t the jet engines melt in flight? The heat caused by the internal combustion within the jet engine is easily 500 degrees hotter then jet fuel burning in the open air.

If professional pilots load in the data from the flight that alleged to have hit the pentagon and that information causes the simulator to crash before it hit the pentagon that is just science. They were just attempting to reproduce the same results with the data from the government’s version of the story.

It’s not my fault you can not duplicate what happened on 9/11 with the United States governments Verison of what happened.

I disrespect no one by trying to find accurate answers.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

All wrong and easily proven by rudimentary science You can in fact get fire to burn hot enough to melt steel when you use the right conditions which DID exist at he WTC ground zero sight . All you need is a fire with plenty of fuel to burn ( the jet fuel only STARTED the fire many consumables burned on after the jet fuel burned up ) then you need air coming on FROM the SIDES of the fire , which also happened because piles of rubble create exactly such a wind tunnel effect , and finally you need a cover over the fire which prevents most of the heat from being released into the atmosphere. A fire such as this will grow hotter and hotter as long as it buns and easily reach temperatures to melt any steel . The basic concept is EXACTLY how a forge was used by blacksmiths to heat and even melt metal for the last few centuries.

There was never any evidence of such simulators being used as you claim , only your claim and it is smoke and mirrors just like the false claims from theorists that no one could recreate the oswald shooting yes they could and yes they did it was easy he had an easy target and was a well trained sharpshooter. '

Pilots do not agree with any of these claims ( sure pilots are people and some probably love a good conspiracy theory ) they know that the actions of the terrorists were easy to accomplish as does any person taking some rudimentary flying classes. Taking off , landing and inclement weather or night flying is what is truly dangerous and difficult about flying. Once a plane is in he air it is EASY to fly and none of the hijackers needed to worry about takeoffs landings bad weather or night they just flew right into the target.

Soupnazi

08-05-2008, 03:29 PM

Please- please forgive me. I'm really confused now. I still can't believe the government has said that the jet fuel is what caused that hot of a fire. I keep hearing that most of the fuel burned off rather quickly. Do you have a source such as a newspaper article, direct statement, official document that has the government saying that it believes the jet fuel was the cause of the hot fire? I just can't find it anywhere. You seem to have some good sources at your disposal, I was hoping you'd post one?

What confuses me the most, though, is your claim that the jetliners that struct the towers were of smaller magnitude.

Maybe someone changed the wikipedia articles on those two planes, but confusingly enough, the planes that struck the twin towers are listed as heavier than the 707 you listed as being heavier.

Boeing 767:315,000 lb
Boeing 707:257,000 lb

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767-223#767-200ER

I'm so confused Jesse...what do you think?

THe government NEVER claimed that the burning jet fuel brought down the buildings or even fire alone caused their collapse. The jet fire did burn off quickly but spread all through the towers down and up elevator shafts . At this point everything else in the building caught fire and many flammable items were in the towers. Computer , cubicle dividers , furniture , carpets , wall paper or paneling , paint , paper, cleaning products , people the list is huge THIS is what continued to burn and the combination of fire and damage to supports from impact caused the buildings to be pulled down by gravity .

The very architects who designed it and the engineers who built it comprehend these facts quite clearly and none have ever supported alternate conspiracy theories

Soupnazi

08-05-2008, 03:39 PM

VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE
On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.

This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.

No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.

Please Investigate 9/11 - Time is of the essence.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

First off many many rumors and false stories were spread by the media that day which is evidence of near hysteria and fear and confusion which was common that day it is not evidence of conspiracy or controlled demoliton

And you are simply wrong no professional demolitions expert has claimed it was brought down by such methods only that it looked similar to how they bring down a building which again is proof of nothing. Lack of any precedence is also not evidence there was no precedent for multiple teams hijacking airliners in the USA either but we know they DID.

THe WTC #7 building was actually a VERY unique design whose structural support was built over a gap in a modified arch which was designed to accomodate a subway tunnel. There is no mystery about how fire and shock from the collapsing towers brought it down nor is there evidence of any other method.

disrupter

08-05-2008, 09:26 PM

Jesse Hemingway

08-05-2008, 11:04 PM

First off many many rumors and false stories were spread by the media that day which is evidence of near hysteria and fear and confusion which was common that day it is not evidence of conspiracy or controlled demoliton

And you are simply wrong no professional demolitions expert has claimed it was brought down by such methods only that it looked similar to how they bring down a building which again is proof of nothing. Lack of any precedence is also not evidence there was no precedent for multiple teams hijacking airliners in the USA either but we know they DID.

THe WTC #7 building was actually a VERY unique design whose structural support was built over a gap in a modified arch which was designed to accomodate a subway tunnel. There is no mystery about how fire and shock from the collapsing towers brought it down nor is there evidence of any other method.

I missed this information below in the 9/11 commission report by your government so if your happy with that government report good for you.

The Mistake Department: One Example of Why American Foreign Policy is a Disaster

By J. Michael Springmann
The Public Record
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
After airplanes flew into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, The Los Angeles Times reported that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers got their U.S. visas from the American Consulate General at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a consulate where I had served as chief of the Visa Section.

What The Los Angeles Times did not report was what I had told their Washington, D.C. bureau after reading the story: (1) that the Jeddah onsulate was not a State Department post but an intelligence services operation; (2) that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) routinely demanded (and got) visas for sleazy characters with no ties to either their home country or Saudi Arabia; (3) that these vile people were terrorists recruited by U.S. intelligence officers along with Osama bin Laden, then a CIA asset.

With the help of non-State Department officials, i.e., Consul General, Jay Philip Freres (retired and living in Clearwater, Fla.), the head of the Political/Economic Section, Eric L. Qualkenbush (retired and living in Findlay, Ohio), the Political Officer, Henry Ensher (currently assigned to D.C. and living in McLean, Va.), a "Commercial Officer", Paul Arvid Tveit (retired and also living in McLean, Va.), the Chief of the Consular Section, Justice (given name) Stevens (whereabouts unknown), and a "part-time" Consular officer, Andy Weber (last seen on the PBS program "Bio-Terror"), they were sent to America for training in blowing things up and shooting things down. Afterwards, they were sent on to Afghanistan to murder Soviet soldiers.

It seems pretty clear that they and people that they had trained are now pursuing their own goals (and most likely U.S. foreign policy interests) in helping destabilize Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their next target may be Iran.

http://www.pubrecord.org/component/c...html?

BTW Soupnazi in the collapse of bldg 7 why did the center of the roof begin to fall before the corners of the bldg. you said “WTC #7 building was actually a VERY unique design whose structural support was built over a gap in a modified arch which was designed to accommodate a subway tunnel.” Then the center of the roof wood have been the most structurally sound causing the corners of the bldg 7 to drop first not like I saw with my own eyes the center roof line sagging first then the corners following the center down.

It is still a free country you can believe what ever you want Soupnazi. This video below is interesting 9/11: Press For Truth by: the Jersey Girls all they wanted was answers from the United States government and got none. I suggest that everyone watch this video from the scrutiny of Americans that lost loved ones and have the rights to get factual answers from their government and got nothing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

Jesse Hemingway

08-06-2008, 08:50 PM

THe government NEVER claimed that the burning jet fuel brought down the buildings or even fire alone caused their collapse. The jet fire did burn off quickly but spread all through the towers down and up elevator shafts . At this point everything else in the building caught fire and many flammable items were in the towers. Computer , cubicle dividers , furniture , carpets , wall paper or paneling , paint , paper, cleaning products , people the list is huge THIS is what continued to burn and the combination of fire and damage to supports from impact caused the buildings to be pulled down by gravity .

The very architects who designed it and the engineers who built it comprehend these facts quite clearly and none have ever supported alternate conspiracy theories

Soupnazi this link below is an architect calls bull shit to your answer.:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

http://www.ae911truth.net/omnitv_interview.htm

Soupnazi

08-07-2008, 04:28 PM

Soupnazi this link below is an architect calls bull shit to your answer.:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

http://www.ae911truth.net/omnitv_interview.htm

An architect means nothing I was refering to THE architects who designed the towers there are a million architects on earth any of them may be prone to say any BULLSHIT like yours thats why the true experts prove you wrong.

Soupnazi

08-07-2008, 04:33 PM

In the pentagon video, there are multiple frames of a low skimming white aircraft heading straight at the Pentagon.

There is NO evidence of a jumbo jet of any kind.

It is invisible on the video & NO debris recoil as it hits the stony face of the Pentagon.

Was it built of sugar water that dissolved?

Flown on an impossible trajectory skimming the ground at a proposed altitude of 6 to 9 FEET by novice pilots for a distance of 1/2 a mile or more all at hundreds of miles per hour with all the low ground air turbulence?

It's a Lie.
It is a sick & treacherous lie.

America, please wake up from the SHOCK & AWE of the violence of 911.

Wrong it is your claims which are lies , the so called videos were actually frames from security cameras which took still photos of the entrances at less than one frame per second . These videos show fuzzy blurs approaching the building which is evidence of ...... nothing . They were not aimed at nor designed to take films of flying objects in the airspace around the pentagon.

There was nothing whatsoever impossible about the jets trajectory it was no problem to fly an aircraft into the building as the hijackers did.

Yes a great deal of debris was collected after the fact and it all proved a jumbo jet hit the pentagon it was captured on film lying around the grounds of the pentagon and too many people were involved in the clean up. Some pieces of debris still had the airline markings visible on them.

Too many witnesses actually SAW the jumbo jet and identified it as such including the then prime minister of australia who was driving to DC from a hotel near the pentagon that day.

There is no evidence of any coverup nor evidence of any thing other than a hijacked airliner hitting the pentagon.

Soupnazi

08-07-2008, 04:34 PM

I missed this information below in the 9/11 commission report by your government so if your happy with that government report good for you.

The Mistake Department: One Example of Why American Foreign Policy is a Disaster

By J. Michael Springmann
The Public Record
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
After airplanes flew into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, The Los Angeles Times reported that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers got their U.S. visas from the American Consulate General at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a consulate where I had served as chief of the Visa Section.

What The Los Angeles Times did not report was what I had told their Washington, D.C. bureau after reading the story: (1) that the Jeddah onsulate was not a State Department post but an intelligence services operation; (2) that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) routinely demanded (and got) visas for sleazy characters with no ties to either their home country or Saudi Arabia; (3) that these vile people were terrorists recruited by U.S. intelligence officers along with Osama bin Laden, then a CIA asset.

With the help of non-State Department officials, i.e., Consul General, Jay Philip Freres (retired and living in Clearwater, Fla.), the head of the Political/Economic Section, Eric L. Qualkenbush (retired and living in Findlay, Ohio), the Political Officer, Henry Ensher (currently assigned to D.C. and living in McLean, Va.), a "Commercial Officer", Paul Arvid Tveit (retired and also living in McLean, Va.), the Chief of the Consular Section, Justice (given name) Stevens (whereabouts unknown), and a "part-time" Consular officer, Andy Weber (last seen on the PBS program "Bio-Terror"), they were sent to America for training in blowing things up and shooting things down. Afterwards, they were sent on to Afghanistan to murder Soviet soldiers.

It seems pretty clear that they and people that they had trained are now pursuing their own goals (and most likely U.S. foreign policy interests) in helping destabilize Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their next target may be Iran.

http://www.pubrecord.org/component/c...html?

BTW Soupnazi in the collapse of bldg 7 why did the center of the roof begin to fall before the corners of the bldg. you said “WTC #7 building was actually a VERY unique design whose structural support was built over a gap in a modified arch which was designed to accommodate a subway tunnel.” Then the center of the roof wood have been the most structurally sound causing the corners of the bldg 7 to drop first not like I saw with my own eyes the center roof line sagging first then the corners following the center down.

It is still a free country you can believe what ever you want Soupnazi. This video below is interesting 9/11: Press For Truth by: the Jersey Girls all they wanted was answers from the United States government and got none. I suggest that everyone watch this video from the scrutiny of Americans that lost loved ones and have the rights to get factual answers from their government and got nothing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

Nothing in your post refutes the fact as I posted them.

Jesse Hemingway

08-07-2008, 10:55 PM

An architect means nothing I was refering to THE architects who designed the towers there are a million architects on earth any of them may be prone to say any BULLSHIT like yours thats why the true experts prove you wrong.

Let's look at your facts Soupnazi

THe government NEVER claimed that the burning jet fuel brought down the buildings or even fire alone caused their collapse. The jet fire did burn off quickly but spread all through the towers down and up elevator shafts . At this point everything else in the building caught fire That's not even factualand many flammable items were in the towers. Computer , cubicle dividers , furniture , carpets , wall paper or paneling , paint , paper, cleaning products , people the list is huge THIS is what continued to burn and the combination of fire and damage to supports from impact caused the buildings to be pulled down by gravity .

The very architects who designed it and the engineers who built it comprehend these facts quite clearly and none have ever supported alternate conspiracy theories
Full of shit again Soupnazi

Here are the engineers who built the Twin Towers:

The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960. Consequently, there was a considerable amount of planning:
“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.” As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”

In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:

“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”

One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”

This indicates that the building designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It is likely that the designers considered this speed of impact for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph. Both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and that the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower. Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.” This statement is supported by the following chart:

property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

In fact, Hoffman observes that “a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.”

Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707:

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”

In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11. This further supports Skilling’s analysis about the possibility of jet fuel destroying the WTC towers. According to Paul Thompson, “the analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964.” This ‘white paper’ concluded that:
“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”
Thompson explains that “besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.” In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because “the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”

The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice finally obtained the WTC blueprints from a ‘whistle-blower’.

Although the WTC was “over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:

“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings—doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”

One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:

“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”
Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”

Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a090301robertson

Soupnazi

08-08-2008, 12:06 AM

Let's look at your facts Soupnazi

Full of shit again Soupnazi

Here are the engineers who built the Twin Towers:

The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960. Consequently, there was a considerable amount of planning:
“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.” As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”

In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:

“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”

One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”

This indicates that the building designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It is likely that the designers considered this speed of impact for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph. Both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and that the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower. Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.” This statement is supported by the following chart:

property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

In fact, Hoffman observes that “a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.”

Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707:

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”

In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11. This further supports Skilling’s analysis about the possibility of jet fuel destroying the WTC towers. According to Paul Thompson, “the analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964.” This ‘white paper’ concluded that:
“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”
Thompson explains that “besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.” In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because “the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”

The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice finally obtained the WTC blueprints from a ‘whistle-blower’.

Although the WTC was “over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:

“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings—doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”

One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:

“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”
Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”

Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a090301robertson

Uh no You have failed to address any of the facts that I poted you merely babble about things which you assert but cannot prove.

The world saw the planes hit the towers , the world saw the towers collapse .

Obviously if someone said they were crash proof that someone was wrong and stupid.

Controlled demolition was impossible and did not happen . It would have required thousands of tons of explosives distributed among many floors. It would have required hundreds of men weeks to set up and the wiring alone would have filled up every elevator shaft in the building.

You have nothing little boy , facts prove you wrong so put down the tabloid and learn to think.

Jesse Hemingway

08-08-2008, 01:40 AM

Uh no You have failed to address any of the facts that I poted you merely babble about things which you assert but cannot prove.

The world saw the planes hit the towers , the world saw the towers collapse .

Obviously if someone said they were crash proof that someone was wrong and stupid.

Controlled demolition was impossible and did not happen . It would have required thousands of tons of explosives distributed among many floors. It would have required hundreds of men weeks to set up and the wiring alone would have filled up every elevator shaft in the building.

You have nothing little boy , facts prove you wrong so put down the tabloid and learn to think.

Your batting a 1000% here Soupnazi the link below discredits you again I am very confident that this paper in the link below far exceeds your mental ability to comprehend. I will post it for other people to peruse that can understand it. I find it very peculiar that investigators from the United States government failed to find this forensic evidence that ordinary citizens easily did find. That’s right we all saw the planes hit the WTCs’ so that is all we need to know? Just another george w bush trust us deals funny thing Soupnazi george w bush has been correct on everything just like you Soupnazi.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC

Just for the fun of it Soupnazi there is a formula at the end of the report that indicates the amount of thermite needed to cut steel. The question is this; if your cutting 1 inch thick piece of structural steel beam the beam is 4 feet by 1 foot you want to cut a ½ inch out all the way around the beam how much thermite do you need? The steel density is 36 grams per cubic inch. Or is this your answer below again :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:
thousands of tons of explosives distributed among many floors

Soupnazi

08-08-2008, 10:55 AM

Your batting a 1000% here Soupnazi the link below discredits you again I am very confident that this paper in the link below far exceeds your mental ability to comprehend. I will post it for other people to peruse that can understand it. I find it very peculiar that investigators from the United States government failed to find this forensic evidence that ordinary citizens easily did find. That’s right we all saw the planes hit the WTCs’ so that is all we need to know? Just another george w bush trust us deals funny thing Soupnazi george w bush has been correct on everything just like you Soupnazi.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC

Just for the fun of it Soupnazi there is a formula at the end of the report that indicates the amount of thermite needed to cut steel. The question is this; if your cutting 1 inch thick piece of structural steel beam the beam is 4 feet by 1 foot you want to cut a ½ inch out all the way around the beam how much thermite do you need? The steel density is 36 grams per cubic inch. Or is this your answer below again :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:
thousands of tons of explosives distributed among many floors

No silly boy it does not discredit the facts I have posted it is based on shear speculation by some people claiming to be experts . It does not dispute the simple fact that no such conspiracy was possible.

The link has no evidence that such explosives were used and does not explain that they could not be planted and wired without someone noticing nor does it address the fact that such secrets are impossible to keep.

These tired theories have all been scientifically and irrefutably debunked and proven fiction .

The conspiracy theories began on the afternoon of 911 and started as they all do because people enjoy such theories and there is an industry to sell them to the public. everyone knows the government can lie and atempt to cover something up , but it always fails to do so . The fact is that the so called government report you deride is actually a report gathered from many sources both government and private and you cannot disprove it.

You are no better than someone who reads the National Enquirer and think they are reading news

Try a course on logic you have no grasp of it

Soupnazi

08-08-2008, 11:00 AM

Jesse Hemingway

08-08-2008, 01:03 PM

No silly boy it does not discredit the facts I have posted it is based on shear speculation by some people claiming to be experts . It does not dispute the simple fact that no such conspiracy was possible.

The link has no evidence that such explosives were used and does not explain that they could not be planted and wired without someone noticing nor does it address the fact that such secrets are impossible to keep.

These tired theories have all been scientifically and irrefutably debunked and proven fiction .

The conspiracy theories began on the afternoon of 911 and started as they all do because people enjoy such theories and there is an industry to sell them to the public. everyone knows the government can lie and atempt to cover something up , but it always fails to do so . The fact is that the so called government report you deride is actually a report gathered from many sources both government and private and you cannot disprove it.

You are no better than someone who reads the National Enquirer and think they are reading news

Try a course on logic you have no grasp of it

Try a course on logic you have no grasp of it
Try a course on logic you have no grasp of it
Try a course on logic you have no grasp of it

Soupnazi if I apply logic to this incident it comes a part even more rapidly by the bush administration not responding to or reacting to many warnings they had prior to 9/11.

Soupnazi

08-08-2008, 02:12 PM

Try a course on logic you have no grasp of it
Try a course on logic you have no grasp of it
Try a course on logic you have no grasp of it

Soupnazi if I apply logic to this incident it comes a part even more rapidly by the bush administration not responding to or reacting to many warnings they had prior to 9/11.

You again are ignoring logic you have jumped from one issue to another when you are cornered and yes you have been cornered and proven wrong.

The original discussion was not about whether warnings were ignored yes we know they were.

You can make a strong case that bush and gang ignored warnings out of incompetence and an even stronger case that they exploited the 911 attacks to invade Iraq. They most certainly did.

You could make a weaker case that they deliberately ignored warnings to allow it to happen in order to exploit the attacks. This is unprovable and based on opinion.

But what you have been arguing about up until this post is inside plots and conspiracies which is also what you have failed to prove and like all such theories have been completely debunked.

disrupter

08-08-2008, 04:47 PM

Soupnazi,

why are you ignoring the fact that the evidence at the Pentagon runs completely counter to the official story?

put up or shut up.

end of story.

Soupnazi

08-08-2008, 05:21 PM

Soupnazi,

why are you ignoring the fact that the evidence at the Pentagon runs completely counter to the official story?

put up or shut up.

end of story.

I am not . There is no such evidence at the pentagon nor has there ever been

Films taken at the pentagon show nothing one way or the other they show only vague blurs they were not designed to film incoming attacks.

There were too many eyewitnesses who SAW the airliner

Too many witnesses who helped collect the debris which WAS from an airliner.

Photos of the debris lying on the lawn which show it was from and airliner.

And none of the claims that the hole is too small are scientifically credible

Those are the facts

Scumbag

08-08-2008, 09:49 PM

There is NO evidence of a jumbo jet of any kind.

There is no evidence that a Jumbo hit (http://widebodyaircraft.nl/b747tgnn.jpg) the Pentagon because it was a 757 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Aa757.jpg), stupid.

If you want people to start taking you seriously, try sticking to the facts, huh! Otherwise your'e just a fucked-up, twisted looney like the rest of 'em.

This (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Aa757.jpg) is a 757. This (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Aa757.jpg) is what hit the Pentagon. Parts of this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Aa757.jpg) airplane were scattered throughout the Pentagon.

Boeing 757 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Aa757.jpg).

Dimensions:
Length: 155 ft 3 inches
Wingspan:124 ft 10 inches
Height: 44 ft 6 in
Weight:
Empty: 139,900 lb
Max Takeoff (MTO): 220, 000 lb
Payload: 49, 910 lb cargo
Performance:
Cruising Speed: Mach .08
Range: 3,900 nm

This is a Jumbo Jet (747) (http://widebodyaircraft.nl/b747tgnn.jpg)
No official report said a Jumbo Jet (http://widebodyaircraft.nl/b747tgnn.jpg) hit the Pentagon (only uninformed goons like you)

No parts of a Jumbo Jet (http://widebodyaircraft.nl/b747tgnn.jpg) were found at the Pentagon because a Jumbo Jet (http://widebodyaircraft.nl/b747tgnn.jpg) did not crash into the Pentagon.

Boeing 747 (Jumbo Jet) (http://widebodyaircraft.nl/b747tgnn.jpg)

Dimensions:
Length: 231 ft 10 inches
Wingspan:195 ft 8 in
Height: 63 ft 5 in
Weight:
Empty: 358, 100 lb
Max Takeoff (MTO): 710, 000 lb
Payload: 225, 000 lb cargo
Performance:
Cruising Speed: 610 mph
Range: 7,900 nm

Jesse Hemingway

08-09-2008, 01:57 AM

You again are ignoring logic you have jumped from one issue to another when you are cornered and yes you have been cornered and proven wrong.

The original discussion was not about whether warnings were ignored yes we know they were.

You can make a strong case that bush and gang ignored warnings out of incompetence and an even stronger case that they exploited the 911 attacks to invade Iraq. They most certainly did.

You could make a weaker case that they deliberately ignored warnings to allow it to happen in order to exploit the attacks. This is unprovable and based on opinion.

But what you have been arguing about up until this post is inside plots and conspiracies which is also what you have failed to prove and like all such theories have been completely debunked.

Soupnazi it was all part of the same continues event you say that the airplanes brought down the north and south WTC and fire building 7. So logically for your version and the government’s version it requires the entire sequence of events to occur to as per the 9/11 commission report that being said good luck. I have the right to question the 9/11 commission report I have the right to say this story does not make sense. Soupnazi you should feel grateful that you can accept the United States government version as fact. Soupnazi good for you.

But what you have been arguing about up until this post is inside plots and conspiracies which is also what you have failed to prove and like all such theories have been completely debunked.

No I have been saying the same thing from the beginning I do not believe this government and drawing attention to the countless inconsistencies, anomalies and, omissions by government wittiness to make 9/11 fit within the 9/11 commission report. As an American I have the right to question this government and ask for more answers not trust us as the answer. If the evidence can not recreate the incident in question exactly as described then something is missing.

LogicallyYours

08-09-2008, 09:54 AM

Jesse Hemingway

08-09-2008, 11:12 AM

This is true. I have been lurking for months watch these people conflate the issues.

While there is evidence that the Bush administration ignored warnings of an attack, there is no evidence that the Bush administration planned or engaged in any part of the 9/11 events....other than ignoring the warnings.

I'm no fan of the administration and think they should be help responsible for the the lies and deceptions they told to lead this country into their war of choice. But to say they planned, sent groups to plant explosives or missiles with totally without evidence or proof.

I see consensus here I believe the bottom line in this entire 9/11 matter is this.
A.) Do you believe and trust george w bush
B) There were 52 warnings to the FAA from 4/1/01 – 9/10/01
C) There many intelligence warnings prior 9/11mentioning airplanes as the weapon
D) Did members of the bush administration lie or omitted information at the 9/11 commission.
E) Would members of the Bush Administration violate the United States Constitution and lie that they did not
F) Who put him in office and the does the Supreme Court have that Constitutional authority to pick the president

Just because of these basic facts no rational person could accept anything with out 100% proof and certainty said by or for the bush administration they have lost all their integrity to be trusted.

LogicallyYours

08-09-2008, 12:16 PM

I see consensus here I believe the bottom line in this entire 9/11 matter is this.
A.) Do you believe and trust george w bush
B) There were 52 warnings to the FAA from 4/1/01 – 9/10/01
C) There many intelligence warnings prior 9/11mentioning airplanes as the weapon
D) Did members of the bush administration lie or omitted information at the 9/11 commission.
E) Would members of the Bush Administration violate the United States Constitution and lie that they did not
F) Who put him in office and the does the Supreme Court have that Constitutional authority to pick the president

Just because of these basic facts no rational person could accept anything with out 100% proof and certainty said by or for the bush administration they have lost all their integrity to be trusted.

So what?...I agree the administration decieved this country into war, is dismantaling the Constitution...blah...blah....blah.....

But, that does not amount to any sort of evidence that they were behind 9/11....or that they sponsored groups to committ the acts of 9/11....or that there is even the smallest amount of evidence the "no plane", "Controlled demolition", "low level nukes".....blah...blah....blah.

When it comes to evidence supporting any of those, there is none.

Jesse Hemingway

08-09-2008, 01:24 PM

So what?...I agree the administration decieved this country into war, is dismantaling the Constitution...blah...blah....blah.....

But, that does not amount to any sort of evidence that they were behind 9/11....or that they sponsored groups to committ the acts of 9/11....or that there is even the smallest amount of evidence the "no plane", "Controlled demolition", "low level nukes".....blah...blah....blah.

When it comes to evidence supporting any of those, there is none.
The leaders of the 9/11 commission have acknowledged FACTS that the 9/11 had been compromised in regards to witnesses, evidence and, commission members. Again you agree with the government's version; I am just saying that the conformation of the compromise by the leaders of the 9/11 commission is indicative that there essentially was no through nor a real investigation. George w bush stated that he never wanted an investigation into 9/11 and that is what he got. The actual 9/11 investigation is so fundamentally fucked up that no rational person could agree with the out come of the investigation when the leaders of the commission have acknowledged that fact.

disrupter

08-09-2008, 02:58 PM

LogicallyYours

08-09-2008, 03:15 PM

The leaders of the 9/11 commission have acknowledged FACTS that the 9/11 had been compromised in regards to witnesses, evidence and, commission members. Again you agree with the government's version; I am just saying that the conformation of the compromise by the leaders of the 9/11 commission is indicative that there essentially was no through nor a real investigation. George w bush stated that he never wanted an investigation into 9/11 and that is what he got. The actual 9/11 investigation is so fundamentally fucked up that no rational person could agree with the out come of the investigation when the leaders of the commission have acknowledged that fact.

No, I am agreeing with what has and what has not been proved. You are extending your distrust in the current administration to believe they had something to do with the actual attacks other than ignoring the warnings from the previous administration and intell chatter.

Again, there is no proof or evidence that anything other than the planes crashing into the WTC and the subsequent fires brought down the towers.

No proof or evidence for the "no planes", "controlled demolition, "low level nukes"...or any of the other absurd ideas the so-called "truthers" have imagined.

Scumbag

08-09-2008, 11:24 PM

I live here in reality,
i care about keeping close account of the relevant points of reality.

If you can't open your mind enough to accommodate reality i guess you aren't ready for adult prime time.You bullshit about living in reality yet you insist that the airplane that hit the Pentagon was a Jumbo Jet.

You bullshit that you care about keeping close account of the relevant points of reality yet you lie about the facts.

Your mind is so closed you can't even see how utterly stupid you look when you continue to spout your idiotic rubbish.

Scumbag

08-09-2008, 11:27 PM

Soupnazi

08-10-2008, 12:06 AM

Please, soupnazi, look at the available video from the Pentagon.

View the security cam pics in sequential animation,
there is an undeniable [small] white aircraft skimming the ground where there should be nothing.

There is NO identifiable Jumbo Jet,
& which because the cam was a wide angle lens should have been in frame even as it descended from altitude.
So the proposed Jumbo Jet skimmed the ground at a reported 6 to 9 feet for a mile or more, despite air turbulence? by complete novice pilots who couldn't even fly a cessna?

There are NO pieces of debris recoiling from the plane hitting the hard face of the building.

the
entry hole
at the Pentagon is
way too small
to include the
multi-ton engines that are
DESIGNED to shear off in the event of a crash.

The whole story at the Pentagon is riddled with holes,
it is the most rotten, banal kind of inhuman deceit.

Wake up to the truth dear,
before we are all dead from these maniacal, armageddon, suicidal, genocidal, psychos.

Do you 'like' being lied to?

does that make you feel more comfortable & secure?

I know a lot of people turn to the fantasy of religion to try to pretend the chaos of their lives has some deeper meaning, but i hope you are a little more intellectually astute than that.

I live here in reality,
i care about keeping close account of the relevant points of reality.

If you can't open your mind enough to accommodate reality i guess you aren't ready for adult prime time.

First of all a 757 is an airliner not a JUMBO jet airliner and that IS what hit the building .

Second I have seen the film and so have millions of others and this is FACT , the film does NOT show what you claim it shows a vague image of a plane out of focus and unidentifiable in terms of size and type this is because the film was a security camera taking still shots at one second intervals and was not trained in the air the object in the film was a 757 but not clearly distinguishable as anything .

In light of the type of camera used and how it was used the eyewitnesses are the only reliable evidence and they saw an airliner and NOTHING else.

The hole was not too small period ,the idea that is too small is based on some sort of cartoon logic but the fact is planes do not crash into concrete buildings leaving the outline of an airplane.

Third, yes there was massive debris on the ground and it was photographed and collected by too many people.

It makes no sense to hijack and airliner then replace it with a kamikaze ghost airplane to stage a crash the airliner WAS hijacked and hit the pentagon that is fact and irrefutable.

Stop being so naive and gullible.

disrupter

08-11-2008, 05:07 PM

LogicallyYours

08-11-2008, 06:57 PM

a few pieces of probably pre-planted jet planes hidden under construction tarps is not "massive debris" as you so incorrectly put it.

I said nothing about a jet plane silhouette 'cut out' as you so distortedly put it.
I talked about the two additional centers of mass [besides the fuselage] the ENGINES & how there was neither separate holes for them nor a wide hole that would have included them as well as the fuselage.

Eyewitnesses, in case your antique notions weren't quite up to speed are notoriously in accurate & easily misled by post-event influences.

Stop lying to other people & perhaps yourself if you believe all that absurd bull-puckey.

I live in reality & must remain accountable to it, for my sake.
If you want to play around & distort reality then when it turns you into road kill i won't be sympathetic, i will figure Darwin's selection process is just taking its toll, making the human gene pool a little smarter on average.

You could slit your own throat & speed up humanity's increased intellectual power.

thank you for your attention in the matter.

a few pieces of probably pre-planted jet planes hidden under construction tarps is not "massive debris" as you so incorrectly put it./[quote]

Except there is no proof for this claim. You can't prove a negative. This claim hold no water whatsoever.

Again, this no evidence to support "pre-planted jet parts hidden under construction tarps". That's just something made up because the lack of evidence.

[quote]Eyewitnesses, in case your antique notions weren't quite up to speed are notoriously in accurate & easily misled by post-event influences.

Sorry, eye witnesses who reported seeing the plane, from many different locations and view points trump the notion of "notoriously in accurate & easily misled by post-event influences" as many of these were taken right after and from many different independent sources who were not influenced by what someone might have said.

i will figure Darwin's selection process is just taking its toll, making the human gene pool a little smarter on average.

Perhaps you should learn what Darwin's theory of Evolution actually states before you incorrectly use as an analogy.

Soupnazi

08-12-2008, 09:47 AM

a few pieces of probably pre-planted jet planes hidden under construction tarps is not "massive debris" as you so incorrectly put it.

I said nothing about a jet plane silhouette 'cut out' as you so distortedly put it.
I talked about the two additional centers of mass [besides the fuselage] the ENGINES & how there was neither separate holes for them nor a wide hole that would have included them as well as the fuselage.

Eyewitnesses, in case your antique notions weren't quite up to speed are notoriously in accurate & easily misled by post-event influences.

Stop lying to other people & perhaps yourself if you believe all that absurd bull-puckey.

I live in reality & must remain accountable to it, for my sake.
If you want to play around & distort reality then when it turns you into road kill i won't be sympathetic, i will figure Darwin's selection process is just taking its toll, making the human gene pool a little smarter on average.

You could slit your own throat & speed up humanity's increased intellectual power.

thank you for your attention in the matter.

The debris was scattered all over the pentagon lawn and photographed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. You say probably pre planted but you have ZERO evidence of that and too many people were involved in cleaning it up which is proof it was not planted.

I know you said nothing about the plane leaving a plane shape on the building I was pointing out your error with some exaggeration.

The error in your thinking is that you have been taught that holes left by crashing airplanes are predictable in size THEY ARE NOT.

I grant you that eyewitnesses can be very bad sources of evidence but in this case NONE contradict the story and there are too many of them and one more time you have no contradictory evidence so they are credible.

Stop being such a nit wit and admit when you are crushed little boy you have NOTHING

disrupter

08-12-2008, 01:58 PM

Soupnazi

08-12-2008, 03:25 PM

[QUOTE=disrupter]Hey, i got something predictible for you honey,
how did the debris get scattered on the lawn when all the pieces of it are INVISIBLE when the supposed plane supposedly crashes into the Pentagon?

I guess the debris snuck over onto the lawn, eh? How stupid are you?

There is even evidence that various edited versions of the video where they tried to edit in flying debris have been found.

You've been lied to. We all have been.
But when you analytically look at the evidence this should become apparent to clear thinking people.

Where the fuck are the holes for the fucking engines?

or did they dissolve along with the entire plane,

the INVISIBLE PLANE!

This is my nation, dipshit.
i give a screw about it even if you don't.

btw you are the one who started with the personal attacks,
resorting to the classic ad hominem attacks,
because any rational points you tried to make fell apart on examination.

come on America, don't be a fool loser like soupnazi.[/QUOUTE
No you started those attacks pin head it was clearly you it was never invisible nor was the debris both were seen and captured on film and you are an uneducated fool.

Get this straight boy there is no law that dictates the engines would have made holes you are foolish and ignorant about science.

You have been easily duped by people who prey on the weak minded and gullible every attempt you have made to explain it has been destroyed the evidence proves you wrong.

I do not deny you are an american and have the same rights as all but you are a weak link in this nation one more time put down the tabloids

LogicallyYours

08-12-2008, 06:30 PM

Hey, i got something predictible for you honey,
how did the debris get scattered on the lawn when all the pieces of it are INVISIBLE when the supposed plane supposedly crashes into the Pentagon?

I guess the debris snuck over onto the lawn, eh? How stupid are you?

You make absoultely no sense in in this comment. I don't even know what point you are trying to make.

There is even evidence that various edited versions of the video where they tried to edit in flying debris have been found.

Really???...Citation and link please. My guess is, it's just more unverifiable claims you read on another site.

You've been lied to. We all have been.
But when you analytically look at the evidence this should become apparent to clear thinking people.

Clear thinking people like you, who dismiss (because you can't debunk it) the eyewitness testimony of people who were there and actually saw the plane impact the Pentagon?

Glad I'm not it your "clear thinking" group.

Where the fuck are the holes for the fucking engines?
or did they dissolve along with the entire plane, the INVISIBLE PLANE!

mmmmmmmmmm....plenty of eyewitnesses saw the plane you think is invisible. Plenty of plane parts were found. Not sure how you think it's "invisible".

This is my nation, dipshit.
i give a screw about it even if you don't.

We do care. What we care is, that the so-called "truthers" dishonor those who perished in the events of 9/11 by making up non-facts, distorting information, dismissing eyewitness testimony and out right lying and assuming that "only they know the truth".

Funny, you all claim to know the truth of what happened that day but you don't share the same truth.

disrupter

08-12-2008, 10:05 PM

Soupnazi

08-13-2008, 10:06 AM

yeah honey,

the laws are called physics, mass, inertia.

btw the fuselage is mostly hollow the engines are far more densely massive.

the fuselage made a hole and the dense, massive engines, that were designed to shear off didn't?

you are just stupid.

wow, breathtakingly stupid.

Wrong the laws of physics state no such thing BOY. It is you who is abysmally stupid and ignorant about physics.

The fuselage was the center of gravity the wings were hollow as well and were badly damaged before final impact .
Get this straight the laws of physics prove you wrong and me right go baqcl to school

disrupter

08-13-2008, 10:07 PM

LogicallyYours

08-14-2008, 10:06 AM

when were the laws of mass, density & inertia revoked? (according to you)

How can a fuselage, WHICH IS HOLLOW, be a center of gravity/mass?
especially without incredible [imaginary] structural re-enforcing?

You are a fucking idiot.

Jet Engine:

designed to shear off in an accident, so they won't tear the wings off.

Massive, dense,

carry great inertia when they are on a vector of motion.

jesus you are a fucking loser shithead.

maybe you need to go back to 5th grade,
because your science lost track somewhere WAY back there.

I guess you are just another drunk alcoholic like GWB at the olympics,
embarrassing this nation now & through history.

In order for you myth to be true, someone had to plant all the evidence at the scene. Who did this and when? Why didn't any of the rescue workers or emergency responders see anyone planting this evidence? Why do the videos, show no one running around planting any plane parts?

So, you think this was all staged:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Where is you proof??? Remember, questions are not proof.

Hog Trash

08-14-2008, 11:13 AM

Every time I think it's safe to go back in the forum, there it is again.

Damn, it sure would be nice if this annoying thread would disappear.
.......FOREVER.......

Jesse Hemingway

08-14-2008, 11:15 AM

Bottom line after 9/11 to the present it looks likes 9/11 was the starting gun for the mad dash to control oil. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

disrupter

08-15-2008, 02:43 PM

LogicallyYours,

It would all have been planted long before the supposed 'attack'.

There were construction debris all around prior to the event.
It would have been very easy to pre-plant evidence [under tarps, in crates] no one would have even begun to suspect or imagine.

This could have been planted days or weeks ahead of time. [days seems the most plausible, of course with government construction something sitting around for weeks might not even been questioned]

it would have all be a part of innocuous construction activity,
all before anyone was looking for anything.

no one would have suspected a thing.

LogicallyYours

08-16-2008, 08:51 AM

Yes, and Elvis might still be alive. There is, however, no proof or evidence that would suggest this even happened. None.

The principal of Occam's Razor would apply here. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

You are choosing to believe a position that requires a great deal of assumptions to be true, over a position that requires none. None, because it was eyewitnessed by hundreds of people...independently.

Soupnazi

08-17-2008, 12:39 PM

LogicallyYours

08-17-2008, 12:45 PM

disrupter

08-17-2008, 01:16 PM

Jesse Hemingway

08-17-2008, 01:16 PM

LogicallyYours

08-17-2008, 05:28 PM

Your 'Elvis' remark was a cheap shot.

but i guess that should be expected.

Is the rational possibility of it just too hard to face.

Truth is too tough for you?

As for Occam's razor,
novice pilots who couldn't even fly a cessna were able [by Allah's miracle?] to fly jumbo jets for 1/2 a mile or more at 6 to 9 feet off the ground despite landscaping as well as construction spools?
where experienced pilots would have known the air turbulence at that 'altitude' would have made it a virtual impossibility?

How about an INVISIBLE 757 jet plane?
How about a small white aircraft that IS VISIBLE in the video frames?
How about a single entry point, cone of destruction rather than a wide or 3 entry points of destruction?
How about not a SINGLE piece of recoiling debris in the video?
Do you believe commercial jet planes are made of sugar water & they just dissolve, invisibly?
and then their 'parts' sneak out secretly into their 'landing' places?

It is a free country, you can believe what you want,
but the evidence doesn't support your beliefs.

How about an INVISIBLE 757 jet plane?
How about a small white aircraft that IS VISIBLE in the video frames?
How about a single entry point, cone of destruction rather than a wide or 3 entry points of destruction?
How about not a SINGLE piece of recoiling debris in the video?
Do you believe commercial jet planes are made of sugar water & they just dissolve, invisibly?
and then their 'parts' sneak out secretly into their 'landing' places?

You need to get you head out of Alex Jones ass. All the above points are complete, debunked bullshit. Not one single point stands. How many times do these have to be debunked for you stop your ignorance???

You need to do some REAL RESEARCH.

As for Occam's razor,
novice pilots who couldn't even fly a cessna were able [by Allah's miracle?] to fly jumbo jets for 1/2 a mile or more at 6 to 9 feet off the ground despite landscaping as well as construction spools?
where experienced pilots would have known the air turbulence at that 'altitude' would have made it a virtual impossibility?

Whether you think it was easy or difficult makes no difference, it happened they did it.

"altitude"...what, more of the 400mph at 750 ft bullshit???...again, DEBUNKED.

What you seem to not understand is, these planes are designed to fly above tolerance. Not forever but, for enough time to allow any corrections that might be needed. This being a fact, these planes were well within the manufacturers tolerance limits. Remember, they were flying this plane for any great length of time at that altitude....they just needed, what....30 secs??? This plane never came close to shaking apart as it was not under stress for a great period of time.

As for Occam's Razor, don't attemp to use something you don't understand.

LogicallyYours

08-17-2008, 05:34 PM

disrupter

08-17-2008, 06:25 PM

Well i will concede to my eyes & not your fabrications.

The video, as imperfect as it may be supports my assertions.

You can lie to yourself & others if you choose, but over the long run the truth is the best bet, because it is the most efficient to maintain.

Society believed in the flat earth for the most part.
The evidence supported an alternative, not socially or religiously acceptable theory.

The only thing you have proved is your loyalty to your own ignorance.

Jesse Hemingway

08-17-2008, 09:00 PM

This is the problem of not having a through investigation into 9/11 and maybe by design. Regardless of any information surrounding 9/11 the United States government has failed to meet the minimum requirements of a civil trial to present their case let alone a criminal trial.
Do to the failure of the United States government to prove their case then just pick a side the funny thing is that until a real investigation occurs both sides are correct by incompetence nothing more nothing less. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:
Everything you see on television is real right? Everything the media reports on television is correct? So much of the 9/11 information from the United States government version requires you to totally believe what you saw through the television the day of 9/11. How ironic that all the tapes from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the high jacked flights where cut up into little pieces and placed in various garbage cans.

Destroyed Flight Evidence
Destruction of Evidence of the Commandeered Flights
Of the four flights commandeered on 9/11/01, Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93, there is virtually no evidence in the public domain that can provide definitive answers to their fate. This is because the evidence has either been suppressed or destroyed by those who controlled the response to and investigation of this vast crime.

Taped Destroyed by FAA
While most of the incidental evidence, such as recordings of communications with pilots of the doomed aircraft, remains in the category of missing, with no one held to account for it, some such evidence is now known to be destroyed. A report issued on May 6, 2004 at the request of Senator John McCain concluded that an audiotape recording of communications with commandeered planes on 9/11/01 was destroyed by FAA managers. 1

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/destroyed.html

F.A.A. Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers' Statements
By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: May 6, 2004

ASHINGTON, May 6 — At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording that same day describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said in a report today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html?ex=1219118400&en=ea1eed9b8eed3ffe&ei=5070

Fake fireworks at Beijing Olympics!
August 13, 2008

The recent footage of the Beijing olympics is under severe scrutiny. The images of footprints created in the sky as fireworks were actually computer generated. The fireworks show 29 gigantic footprints one for each summer olympics.

The very first footprint over Tiananmen Square and the 29th Footprint appeared at the ‘Bird’s Nest’ stadium. To be fair to them it was an incredible firework display. But what is the point of doing that if its going to be fake!!?

Real fireworks were fired off from respective places in Beijing during the Friday ceremony, but the bird’s eye view sequence was completely computer generated. What a scam!

When confronted about the entire scam, Wang Wie, the executive vice president of the Bejing organizing group basically admitted to the scam at a press conference on Tuesday saying, “They may have been computer generated!”

http://wordpress.com/tag/olympics-fake-fireworks/

Mr Chen's interview gave an extraordinary insight into the control exercised over the ceremony by the Games' political overseers, all to ensure the country was seen at its best.

Officials have already admitted that the pictures of giant firework footprints which marched across Beijing towards the stadium on Friday night were prerecorded, digitally enhanced and inserted into footage beamed across the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2545387/Beijing-Olympics-Faking-scandal-over-girl-who-sang-in-opening-ceremony.html

Sky News uses footage of ruins of South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, says it is Georgia’s key town
Sky New lies giving ruins of South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, for Georgia’s key town of Gori, which they say Russian bombed.

The channel simply used the footage of Tskhinvali, which was literally ruined as a result of Georgia’s attacks, to make reports about the situation in the town of Gori, which the Russian aviation supposedly bombed.

Pravda.ru journalists concluded that the footag More..e of destruction, fires and crying civilians used by Sky News in its Gori report was identical to the footage aired by Russian TV channel Zvezda (Star) when it reported about Tskhinvali.

On Wednesday, Sky News made a report about Russian tanks supposedly advancing towards Georgia’s Gori (the information was subsequently rebutted). The company aired the footage, which showed that the small town had been destroyed.

Georgian authorities and Western media outlets previously said that the Russian aviation had bombed Gori, which led to numerous casualties. Russia strongly rejected those statements.

The footage aired by the British TV channel was preceded with a picture of a road sign displaying the name of the town – Gori – written in Georgian and English languages. The report also said that a Sky News correspondent was reporting from the Georgian town.

However, the footage that followed the picture of the road sign was fake.

Russia ’s TV channel Zvezda, which has five camera crews working in Tskhinvali, aired the same footage two days before, on Monday. Sky News showed its report with no sound, whereas the people showed in the Russian report could be heard speaking Russian and Ossetian languages. The crying people shown in the report were heard cursing Georgian President Saakashvili for destructions and manslaughter.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ac_1218941710

Russian channel accuses CNN of using misleading war video

■ MOSCOW (MN) - Russian English-language television channel Russia Today has acused the U.S. broadcaster CNN of using the wrong pictures in their coverage of the conflict in South Ossetia. A Russian cameraman says footage of wrecked tanks and ruined buildings, which was purported to have been filmed in the town of Gori, in fact showed the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, the RTTV reported on its web site.

Gori was said to be about to fall under the control of the Russian army but the cameraman says the video was actually shot in Tskhinvali, which had been flattened by Georgian shelling.

"When we arrived and news came that Gori was being shelled, I saw my footage. I said: that's not Gori! That's Tskhinvali. I can swear in front of any tribunal. I can point out this location on a map, because I and a cameraman from the channel Rossiya videotaped that," the channel quoted the cameraman as saying.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20080816&articleId=9854

LogicallyYours

08-18-2008, 09:16 PM

The video, as imperfect as it may be supports my assertions.

Everything you see on television is real right? Everything the media reports on television is correct? So much of the 9/11 information from the United States government version requires you to totally believe what you saw through the television the day of 9/11. How ironic that all the tapes from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the high jacked flights where cut up into little pieces and placed in various garbage cans

In no fashion does ANY of the video support you assumptions. You are asking for high-speed still frame images from very low quality security cameras...and then calling fowl when those cameras don't supply exacting images.

Again, the independent number of eye witnesses make you points moot.

Jesse Hemingway

08-18-2008, 10:46 PM

While I agree that an independent thorough investigation should be done, much of the evidence is already in play and speaks for itself. The idea that there were no planes and that a planes didn't hit the WTC and the Pentagon are COMPLETE ASSHAT BULLSHIT in light of the independent eyewitness testimony and independent video and photos sources.
I never said there were no planes but address the destruction of evidence by the FAA. Is that what we expect from the agency the FAA that controls the skies? I am sure it was in violation of the standard operating producers of the FAA what gives the United States government to pass off a half assed investigation as fact. The only thing that gives the United States government that opportunity to pass of this fraudulent investigation as fact is the ignorant citizens of the United States.

If the United States government could prove with out reasonable doubt their version of what happened it would be fine with me but they have not addressed any thing. So I have no choice but to conclude they are hiding information which makes me more critical and basically that is their only function to manage our assets. Since 9/11 the only thing they be managing is the transferring our assets to themselves.

Soupnazi

08-19-2008, 12:33 PM

Your 'Elvis' remark was a cheap shot.

but i guess that should be expected.

Is the rational possibility of it just too hard to face.

Truth is too tough for you?

As for Occam's razor,
novice pilots who couldn't even fly a cessna were able [by Allah's miracle?] to fly jumbo jets for 1/2 a mile or more at 6 to 9 feet off the ground despite landscaping as well as construction spools?
where experienced pilots would have known the air turbulence at that 'altitude' would have made it a virtual impossibility?

How about an INVISIBLE 757 jet plane?
How about a small white aircraft that IS VISIBLE in the video frames?
How about a single entry point, cone of destruction rather than a wide or 3 entry points of destruction?
How about not a SINGLE piece of recoiling debris in the video?
Do you believe commercial jet planes are made of sugar water & they just dissolve, invisibly?
and then their 'parts' sneak out secretly into their 'landing' places?

It is a free country, you can believe what you want,
but the evidence doesn't support your beliefs.

The elvis remark was dead on accurate even if cheap the same mentality applies.

The arabs WERE able to fly such planes or even he airliner , flying a plane is easy it is taking off , landing, and flying in inclement weather or night are the hard parts and the hijackers had one of those concerns . All experienced pilots will tell you the 1/2 mile suicide run was a little tricky but not impossible rather easy to do actually.

The aircraft n he frames was NOT distinguishable as any sort of aircraft big or small EXCEPT and airplane it is proof of nothing one way or the other therefore the eyewitnesses are the undeniable proof.

No it would have been impossible to hide and then distribute the debris as part of a plot too many people knowing about it and someone will always talk.

There is no science which dictates a size or shape of the impact hole the video was simply not designed to film or photograph anything which would have allowed it to capture recoiling debris

LogicallyYours

08-19-2008, 07:00 PM

I never said there were no planes but address the destruction of evidence by the FAA. Is that what we expect from the agency the FAA that controls the skies? I am sure it was in violation of the standard operating producers of the FAA what gives the United States government to pass off a half assed investigation as fact. The only thing that gives the United States government that opportunity to pass of this fraudulent investigation as fact is the ignorant citizens of the United States.

If the United States government could prove with out reasonable doubt their version of what happened it would be fine with me but they have not addressed any thing. So I have no choice but to conclude they are hiding information which makes me more critical and basically that is their only function to manage our assets. Since 9/11 the only thing they be managing is the transferring our assets to themselves.

The tapes you are referring to were tapes of the controllers who were questioned after (but on the same day) the events of 9/11. They were not data tapes or video tapes.

The tape's existence was never made known to federal officials investigating the attack, nor to FAA officials in Washington. Staff members of the 9/11 panel found out about the tape during interviews with some controllers who participated in the recording.

The FAA didn't know about the tapes so, it seems unlikely that they would have had them destroyed.

Also, if these controllers had something to say that was different from the official explanation, they have had more than enough opportunity to speak up.

There's no evidence that the destruction of the tape resulting in useful information being lost. The controllers provided written statements, and the FAA said they believed the tape "would not have added in any significant way to the information contained in what has already been provided to investigators and members of the 9/11 commission". Further, many of the 9/11 controllers have spoken about the events of the day elsewhere, in newspaper articles, TV documentaries like NBCs "America Remembers" and more. It's hard to imagine a detail in the tape that would be important enough to contradict some part of what we know already, yet simultaneously so trivial that the controllers would forget to mention it.

Back to zero.

Jesse Hemingway

08-19-2008, 10:59 PM

The tapes you are referring to were tapes of the controllers who were questioned after (but on the same day) the events of 9/11. They were not data tapes or video tapes.

The FAA didn't know about the tapes so, it seems unlikely that they would have had them destroyed.

Also, if these controllers had something to say that was different from the official explanation, they have had more than enough opportunity to speak up.

Back to zero.

Taped Destroyed by FAA
While most of the incidental evidence, such as recordings of communications with pilots of the doomed aircraft, remains in the category of missing, with no one held to account for it, some such evidence is now known to be destroyed. A report issued on May 6, 2004 at the request of Senator John McCain concluded that an audiotape recording of communications with commandeered planes on 9/11/01 was destroyed by FAA managers. 1
The tape contained a one-hour interview, taken on the day of the attack, with six controllers who tracked two of the planes on 9/11/01. The controllers gave detailed accounts of what events they recalled just hours earlier. An FAA official described in the report as a quality assurance manager crushed the cassette, then cut up the tape and dropped pieces into multiple trash cans. 2

Destruction of the Aircraft and Passengers
Most of the direct physical evidence from the four flights, such as pieces of the aircraft, and corpses and effects of the passengers, was destroyed or degraded beyond recognition by the attack itself. FEMA documented a few pieces of Flights 11 and 175 that exited the towers, but it appears that none of this evidence was examined or saved for study, in contrast to normal practice in air disaster investigations.
There appears to be no public information on the fate or status of the bulk of the aircraft remains, which remained trapped in the towers. Given the thoroughness of the destruction of the towers, those remains were probably shredded and distributed throughout the rubble of Ground Zero.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/destroyed.html

9/11 COMMISSION SAYS U.S. AGENCIES SLOW ITS INQUIRY

PHILIP SHENON
Published: July 9, 2003
The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said today that its work was being hampered by the failure of executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department, to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony.

The panel also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission's chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to ''intimidation'' of the witnesses.

In what they acknowledged was an effort to bring public pressure on the White House to meet the panel's demands for classified information, the commission's Republican chairman and Democratic vice chairman released a statement, declaring that they had received only a small part of the millions of sensitive government documents they have requested from the executive branch.

While praising President Bush and top aides for their personal commitment to the panel's work, the commission's leaders -- the chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Lee H. Hamilton, the former Democratic member of the House from Indiana -- said that federal agencies under Mr. Bush's control were not cooperating quickly or fully.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03EFDC123DF93AA35754C0A9659C8B 63

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

9/11 Commission Primer
July 20, 2004

After months of research and testimony, this week the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) will release its final report on the events surrounding 9/11 and recommendations for protecting our country from future attacks. This is a moment the Bush administration sought to prevent. The 9/11 Commission Primer by the Center for American Progress reminds its readers of the administration's attempts to obstruct and discredit the work of the Commission, and abdicate responsibility for protecting our country.

• Obstructing the Investigation
• Stonewalling the Commission
• Attacking the Commission and Its Members
• Abdicating Responsibility

While President Bush hailed the work of the Commission as "important for future administrations," his administration did everything it could to block and impede and the Commission from conducting its vital work. Not only did the White House oppose formation of the Commission, but resisted providing the Commission with the time and resources it needed to carry out its work.

White House Opposed Formation of Commission: President Bush and Vice President Cheney both contacted then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in the months after 9/11 to insist on strict limits in the scope of any investigation into the attacks. Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks. If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.

Bush's Hand-Picked Co-Chairman Steps Down: On November 27, 2002, President Bush appointed Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 Commission. At the time, the NYT opined the White House had chosen him "to contain an investigation it has long opposed." Less than a month later, Kissinger resigned from the post over conflicts of interest.

White House Resisted Fully Funding: Time Magazine reported last year that the White House "brushed off" a request by Commission Chairman Tom Kean to boost the investigation's budget by $11 million, even though the Commission stated it could not complete the investigation without the funds.

White House Opposed Time Extension for Finishing Commission's Work: In January 2004, President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) opposed granting a two-month extension, even though Commission members said the extra time was necessary to finish their work. Two weeks later, after public outcry, the White House capitulated and announced on February 4, 2004, that it would allow the Commission to have the extra 60 days it needed.

President's Chief Counsel Tried to Influence Panel: Top White House counsel Alberto Gonzales tried to manipulate the 9/11 Commission, calling Republican commissioners Fred F. Fielding and James R. Thompson just before they gathered on March 24, 2004, to hear the testimony of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke. After the calls, "Fielding and Thompson presented evidence questioning the former official's credibility," leading critics to denounce the impropriety of Gonzales' phone calls.

The Bush administration also sought to withhold key information from the Commission during the investigation. The White House dragged its feet in allowing National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify, and fought hard to limit the president's appearance before the Commission. The White House also denied Commission members access to critical information, in particular the president's daily intelligence updates.

White House Refused to Allow National Security Advisor to Testify: On March 28, 2004, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tried to justify her resistance to testifying in front of the Commission, arguing, "it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress." The White House soon faced the reality that former top White House officials Lloyd Cutler, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Berger and John Podesta appeared before congressional committees while serving as advisers to presidents, and that Adm. William Leahy, chief of staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, appeared before the special congressional panel investigating the Pearl Harbor attacks. On March 30, 2004, the White House finally bowed to pressure and announced that Rice would testify in public under oath before the Commission.

White House Demanded Panel Not Seek Additional Testimony: In exchange for Rice's testimony, the White House specifically demanded that "the panel agree not to seek testimony from other White House aides," even if that testimony were to become critical to the Commission's mandate.

White House Tried to Limit Bush's Testimony to One Hour: On February 25, 2004, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney announced "strict limits" surrounding their private interviews with the 9/11 Commission, saying Bush would submit to only a single hour of questioning. On March 2, 2004, the Commission rejected the hour deadline as unacceptable. A week later, on March 10, 2004, White House spokesman Scott McClellan backtracked on the demand, saying, "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock."

White House Demanded Joint Bush/Cheney Testimony: The White House also demanded that President Bush and Vice President Cheney not be forced to testify under oath and be allowed to testify together, facilitating the potential coordination of their testimony. Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, members of the Commission, indicated that they would prefer them to testify separately.

White House Denied Request for Presidential Daily Briefs: The Commission struggled with the White House for access to the "Presidential Daily Brief" (PDB), a document presented to the President each morning containing that day's intelligence. After months of negotiations, the White House limited access to the PDBs to only four commissioners, who then would brief the full ten-member panel. However, although the four-member team "asked to look at 360 PDBs dating back to [1998,] White House counsel Alberto Gonzales permitted them to see just 24."

White House Denied Access to Panel's Own Notes: After limiting the number of commissioners who could view the PDBs, the White House refused to give the panel access to notes commissioners with access had taken on them. On March 14, 2004, 15 months after the creation of the Commission, the White House finally agreed to provide the Commission with a 17-page summary of the PDBs from the Bush and Clinton administrations related to al Qaeda.

White House Held Back Additional Documents: On April 1, 2004, it was discovered that the Bush White House had not turned over about 75 percent of the almost 11,000 pages of Clinton records "that document custodians had determined should be released to the Commission investigating the terrorist attacks," even though the records were vital to the panel's mission. Clinton "had given authorization to the National Archives to gather evidence from Mr. Clinton's files that was sought by the independent Commission... But the Bush administration... had final authority to decide what would be turned over."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b124722.html

9/11 inquiry alleges witness intimidationJulian Borger in Washington The Guardian, Thursday July 10 2003

A US panel investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks yesterday accused the Pentagon and the justice department of obstructing the inquiry and said witnesses were being intimidated.
The federal commission of inquiry was appointed eight months ago by the White House, which was under intense congressional pressure to look into allegations that the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon could have done more to prevent the 2001 al-Qaida attacks.

Among a string of apparent intelligence failures, the commission will be asking why the FBI failed to heed warnings from some of its agents that al-Qaida could be planning to hit targets with hijacked airliners.

The investigation has been hampered by the withdrawal of its original chairman, Henry Kissinger, on grounds of conflict of interest, and funding difficulties. The bipartisan panel now says its work has been blocked by the bureaucracy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/10/september11.usa

Key 9/11 Commission Staffer Held Secret Meetings With Rove, Scaled Back Criticisms of White House»
A forthcoming book by NYT reporter Philip Shenon — “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation” — asserts that former 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow interfered with the 9/11 report.
According to the book, Zelikow had failed to inform the commission at the time he was hired that he was instrumental in helping Condoleezza Rice set up Bush’s National Security Council in 2001. Some panel staffers believe Zelikow stopped them from submitting a report depicting Rice’s performance prior to 9/11 as “amount to incompetence.”

Relying on the accounts of Max Holland, an author and blogger who has obtained a copy of the forthcoming book, ABC reports that Zelikow was holding private discussions with White House political adviser Karl Rove during the course of the 9/11 investigation:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/30/zelikow-interfered/

Bush Covered up Musharraf Ties with Qaeda, Khan
Analysis by Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (IPS) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's resignation Monday brings to an end an extraordinarily close relationship between Musharraf and the George W. Bush administration, in which Musharraf was lavished with political and economic benefits from the United States despite policies that were in sharp conflict with U.S. security interests.

It is well known that Bush repeatedly praised Musharraf as the most loyal ally of the United States against terrorism, even though the Pakistani military was deeply compromised by its relationship with the Taliban and Pakistani Islamic militants.

What has not been reported is that the Bush administration covered up the Musharraf regime's involvement in the activities of the A. Q. Khan nuclear technology export programme and its deals with al Qaeda's Pakistani tribal allies.

[I]The problem faced by the Bush administration when it came into office was that the Pakistani military, over which Musharraf presided, was the real terrorist nexus with the Taliban and al Qaeda. As Bruce Riedel, National Security Council (NSC) senior director for South Asia in the Bill Clinton administration, who stayed on the NSC staff under the Bush administration, observed in an interview with this writer last September, al Qaeda "was a creation of the jihadist culture of the Pakistani army".

If there was a state sponsor of al Qaeda, Riedel said, it was the Pakistani military, acting through its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.

Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservative-dominated Bush Pentagon were aware of the intimate relationship between Musharraf's regime and both the Taliban and al Qaeda. But al Qaeda was not a high priority for the Bush administration. After 9/11, the White House created the political myth that Musharraf, faced with a clear choice, had "joined the free world in fighting the terrorists". But as Asia expert Selig S. Harrison has pointed out, on Sep. 19, 2001, just six days after he had supposedly agreed to U.S. demands for cooperation against the Taliban regime and al Qaeda, Musharraf gave a televised speech in Urdu in which he declared, "We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and the Taliban."

In his memoirs, published in 2006, Musharraf revealed the seven specific demands he had been given and claimed that he had refused both "blanket overflight and landing rights" and the use of Pakistan's naval ports and air bases to conduct anti-terrorism operations.

Musharraf also famously wrote that, immediately after 9/11, Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage had threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" if Musharraf didn't side with the United States against bin Laden and his Afghan hosts. But Armitage categorically denied to this writer, through his assistant, Kara Bue, that he had made any threat whatsoever, let alone a threat to retaliate militarily against Pakistan.

For the next few years, Musharraf played a complicated game. The CIA was allowed to operate in Pakistan's border provinces to pursue al Qaeda operatives, but only as long as they had ISI units accompanying them. That restricted their ability to gather intelligence in the northwest frontier. At the same time, ISI was allowing Taliban and al Qaeda leaders to operate freely in the tribal areas and even in Karachi.

The Bush administration also gave Musharraf and the military regime a free ride on the A. Q. Khan network's selling of nuclear technology to Libya and Iran, even though there was plenty of evidence that the generals had been fully aware of and supported Khan's activities.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43605

Jesse Hemingway

08-20-2008, 01:53 AM

This statement by Vice President Dick Cheney sticks out like a sore thumb. The 9/11 investigation has not occurred at this point yet Vice President Dick Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" what mission? At that point and still today there has been no factual evidence to determine the “mission” the FBI as of right now still has not placed Osama Ben Laden on the most wanted list for 9/11. “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Time to ask Vice President Dick Cheney what he meant by his statement "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060610&articleId=2623

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks. If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.

9/11 Commission Primer
July 20, 2004

After months of research and testimony, this week the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) will release its final report on the events surrounding 9/11 and recommendations for protecting our country from future attacks. This is a moment the Bush administration sought to prevent. The 9/11 Commission Primer by the Center for American Progress reminds its readers of the administration's attempts to obstruct and discredit the work of the Commission, and abdicate responsibility for protecting our country.

• Obstructing the Investigation
• Stonewalling the Commission
• Attacking the Commission and Its Members
• Abdicating Responsibility

While President Bush hailed the work of the Commission as "important for future administrations," his administration did everything it could to block and impede and the Commission from conducting its vital work. Not only did the White House oppose formation of the Commission, but resisted providing the Commission with the time and resources it needed to carry out its work.

White House Opposed Formation of Commission: President Bush and Vice President Cheney both contacted then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in the months after 9/11 to insist on strict limits in the scope of any investigation into the attacks. Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks. If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.

Bush's Hand-Picked Co-Chairman Steps Down: On November 27, 2002, President Bush appointed Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 Commission. At the time, the NYT opined the White House had chosen him "to contain an investigation it has long opposed." Less than a month later, Kissinger resigned from the post over conflicts of interest.

White House Resisted Fully Funding: Time Magazine reported last year that the White House "brushed off" a request by Commission Chairman Tom Kean to boost the investigation's budget by $11 million, even though the Commission stated it could not complete the investigation without the funds.

White House Opposed Time Extension for Finishing Commission's Work: In January 2004, President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) opposed granting a two-month extension, even though Commission members said the extra time was necessary to finish their work. Two weeks later, after public outcry, the White House capitulated and announced on February 4, 2004, that it would allow the Commission to have the extra 60 days it needed.

President's Chief Counsel Tried to Influence Panel: Top White House counsel Alberto Gonzales tried to manipulate the 9/11 Commission, calling Republican commissioners Fred F. Fielding and James R. Thompson just before they gathered on March 24, 2004, to hear the testimony of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke. After the calls, "Fielding and Thompson presented evidence questioning the former official's credibility," leading critics to denounce the impropriety of Gonzales' phone calls.

The Bush administration also sought to withhold key information from the Commission during the investigation. The White House dragged its feet in allowing National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify, and fought hard to limit the president's appearance before the Commission. The White House also denied Commission members access to critical information, in particular the president's daily intelligence updates.

White House Refused to Allow National Security Advisor to Testify: On March 28, 2004, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tried to justify her resistance to testifying in front of the Commission, arguing, "it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress." The White House soon faced the reality that former top White House officials Lloyd Cutler, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Berger and John Podesta appeared before congressional committees while serving as advisers to presidents, and that Adm. William Leahy, chief of staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, appeared before the special congressional panel investigating the Pearl Harbor attacks. On March 30, 2004, the White House finally bowed to pressure and announced that Rice would testify in public under oath before the Commission.

White House Demanded Panel Not Seek Additional Testimony: In exchange for Rice's testimony, the White House specifically demanded that "the panel agree not to seek testimony from other White House aides," even if that testimony were to become critical to the Commission's mandate.

White House Tried to Limit Bush's Testimony to One Hour: On February 25, 2004, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney announced "strict limits" surrounding their private interviews with the 9/11 Commission, saying Bush would submit to only a single hour of questioning. On March 2, 2004, the Commission rejected the hour deadline as unacceptable. A week later, on March 10, 2004, White House spokesman Scott McClellan backtracked on the demand, saying, "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock."

White House Demanded Joint Bush/Cheney Testimony: The White House also demanded that President Bush and Vice President Cheney not be forced to testify under oath and be allowed to testify together, facilitating the potential coordination of their testimony. Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, members of the Commission, indicated that they would prefer them to testify separately.

White House Denied Request for Presidential Daily Briefs: The Commission struggled with the White House for access to the "Presidential Daily Brief" (PDB), a document presented to the President each morning containing that day's intelligence. After months of negotiations, the White House limited access to the PDBs to only four commissioners, who then would brief the full ten-member panel. However, although the four-member team "asked to look at 360 PDBs dating back to [1998,] White House counsel Alberto Gonzales permitted them to see just 24."

White House Denied Access to Panel's Own Notes: After limiting the number of commissioners who could view the PDBs, the White House refused to give the panel access to notes commissioners with access had taken on them. On March 14, 2004, 15 months after the creation of the Commission, the White House finally agreed to provide the Commission with a 17-page summary of the PDBs from the Bush and Clinton administrations related to al Qaeda.

White House Held Back Additional Documents: On April 1, 2004, it was discovered that the Bush White House had not turned over about 75 percent of the almost 11,000 pages of Clinton records "that document custodians had determined should be released to the Commission investigating the terrorist attacks," even though the records were vital to the panel's mission. Clinton "had given authorization to the National Archives to gather evidence from Mr. Clinton's files that was sought by the independent Commission... But the Bush administration... had final authority to decide what would be turned over."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b124722.html

Bush Covered up Musharraf Ties with Qaeda, Khan
Analysis by Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (IPS) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's resignation Monday brings to an end an extraordinarily close relationship between Musharraf and the George W. Bush administration, in which Musharraf was lavished with political and economic benefits from the United States despite policies that were in sharp conflict with U.S. security interests.

It is well known that Bush repeatedly praised Musharraf as the most loyal ally of the United States against terrorism, even though the Pakistani military was deeply compromised by its relationship with the Taliban and Pakistani Islamic militants.

What has not been reported is that the Bush administration covered up the Musharraf regime's involvement in the activities of the A. Q. Khan nuclear technology export programme and its deals with al Qaeda's Pakistani tribal allies.

The problem faced by the Bush administration when it came into office was that the Pakistani military, over which Musharraf presided, was the real terrorist nexus with the Taliban and al Qaeda. As Bruce Riedel, National Security Council (NSC) senior director for South Asia in the Bill Clinton administration, who stayed on the NSC staff under the Bush administration, observed in an interview with this writer last September, al Qaeda "was a creation of the jihadist culture of the Pakistani army".

If there was a state sponsor of al Qaeda, Riedel said, it was the Pakistani military, acting through its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.

Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservative-dominated Bush Pentagon were aware of the intimate relationship between Musharraf's regime and both the Taliban and al Qaeda. But al Qaeda was not a high priority for the Bush administration. After 9/11, the White House created the political myth that Musharraf, faced with a clear choice, had "joined the free world in fighting the terrorists". But as Asia expert Selig S. Harrison has pointed out, on Sep. 19, 2001, just six days after he had supposedly agreed to U.S. demands for cooperation against the Taliban regime and al Qaeda, Musharraf gave a televised speech in Urdu in which he declared, "We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and the Taliban."

In his memoirs, published in 2006, Musharraf revealed the seven specific demands he had been given and claimed that he had refused both "blanket overflight and landing rights" and the use of Pakistan's naval ports and air bases to conduct anti-terrorism operations.

Musharraf also famously wrote that, immediately after 9/11, Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage had threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" if Musharraf didn't side with the United States against bin Laden and his Afghan hosts. But Armitage categorically denied to this writer, through his assistant, Kara Bue, that he had made any threat whatsoever, let alone a threat to retaliate militarily against Pakistan.

For the next few years, Musharraf played a complicated game. The CIA was allowed to operate in Pakistan's border provinces to pursue al Qaeda operatives, but only as long as they had ISI units accompanying them. That restricted their ability to gather intelligence in the northwest frontier. At the same time, ISI was allowing Taliban and al Qaeda leaders to operate freely in the tribal areas and even in Karachi.

The Bush administration also gave Musharraf and the military regime a free ride on the A. Q. Khan network's selling of nuclear technology to Libya and Iran, even though there was plenty of evidence that the generals had been fully aware of and supported Khan's activities.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43605

Jesse Hemingway

08-20-2008, 02:19 PM

Can you say Coup d'état

According to the attorneys, Rove’s goal with this strategy is to establish a unitary Executive Branch with a supportive judiciary, a weak legislature and a fearful press. Corporate sponsors of this strategy, such as tobacco, energy, telecom, and pharmaceutical companies are rewarded with hands off government: deregulated oversight, stringent limits on class-action damages, the stacking of high courts with pro-business/anti-consumer Justices etc.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute_rove/

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Mukasey.pdf

Jesse Hemingway

08-20-2008, 10:55 PM

disrupter

08-21-2008, 11:42 AM

LogicallyYours

08-21-2008, 06:30 PM

Impact holes & video characteristics are functions of physics.

ALL of the other video that has finally been released ALSO

SHOW NO PLANE.

but i guess we can count on a bunch of hysterical 'eye witnesses' to tell us what happened.

Holy Crap!...You with "physics" again. You have no idea about what you are speaking...none!

You cannot debunk the eye witnesses so, you attemp to drool on about physics. Drool away...EYE WITNESSES SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. PERIOD.

Jesse Hemingway

08-22-2008, 10:21 AM

Thursday, August 21, 2008
NTSB Flight Data: Flight 77 Could Not Have Crashed into the Pentagon
NTSB data indicates Flight 77 never dropped below 273 feet!

Therefore, Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon. The Pentagon is only 71 feet tall. Secondly, according to the black box data, Flight 77 could not have damaged the light poles. 77 was much too high (the poles are only 40 feet) and on the wrong trajectory. Dare we hope that this is the wooden stake driven into the heart of vile, evil, official lies about 911?

Data released by the NTSB in response to an FOIA request by Pilots for 911 Truth are nothing less than the raw "block box' file, the official 'flight data' recorded from Flight 77. It's a digital record of everything that happened on that flight from take off. Additionally, altitude and position are confirmed by the beacon at nearby Reagan National Airport.

The data proves that the US government is lying to us about 911. The data is consistent with those who suspect that 911 was engineered by a Bush cabal who continues to exploit 911 for geo-political reasons, the acquisition of foreign oil by conquest and the suppression of dissent.

All the documentation for this article as well as the video by Pilots for 911 truth is from the US government or official agencies of the US government, specifically the FBI and the NTSB.

The Flight data recorder is the FA2100 Solid State Flight Data Recorders, a product of L3 Communications. The purpose of a flight data recorder is to record precisely what happens to a plane during the course of the flight. According to Calum Douglas, Pilots for 911 Truth requested and eventually received a 25 megabyte .fdr file in response to its FOIA request.

Some of the more interesting findings conflict with the 'official conspiracy theory', mass media accounts, and official statements by Bush, Rumsfeld et al.
Last recorded altitude figure is 273 feet! The height of the Pentagon is 71. There is, in fact, no credible explanation of just how Flight 77 could possibly have crashed into the Pentagon. According to Pilots for 911truth.org: "After take-off Flight 77 never went below 273 ft". Their assertion is based entirely upon official data released to them by the NTSB.
Flight 77 could not have knocked over or damaged light poles on either side of the motorway beside the Pentagon. Flight 77 data indicates that the flight was at the wrong angle of approach and much to high. The lowest altitude recorded by is 273 feet. The light poles are about 40 feet high. Flight 77s path varies by some 20 degrees a path that would caused pole damage before striking the Pentagon at the point at which it was, in fact, struck by something. According to flight data, Flight 77 was never 'anywhere near' any of the damaged poles at any time.
Radar altitude data from NTSB confirms the recorded flight data that Flight 77 could not have knocked over the poles. It's another hole Bush's 'official conspiracy theory'.

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/08/ntsb-flight-data-flight-77-could-not.html

disrupter

08-22-2008, 10:50 AM

I don't know what universe you live in, but mine generally follows the laws of physics.

but then i am not a corporate sociopath, so you may have to 'explain' how [if?] your brain works.

Scumbag

08-23-2008, 07:14 AM

LogicallyYours

08-23-2008, 09:59 AM

Jesse Hemingway

08-23-2008, 10:17 AM

You'll need to learn a lot more about altimeter settings before you start hanging your hat on that one, goose!

Since the aircraft was not attempting to land at the time of impact, the altimeter would not have been set to compensate for the difference between the take-off altitude above sea level and the impact altitude above sea level.

A small difference in altitude could easily explain a 273 foot discrepancy.

Once again you post easliy debinked bullshit!

Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR) and Flight Data Recorders (FDR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Large commercial aircraft and some smaller commercial, corporate, and private aircraft are required by the FAA to be equipped with two "black boxes" that record information about a flight. Both recorders are installed to help reconstruct the events leading to an aircraft accident. One of these, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), records radio transmissions and sounds in the cockpit, such as the pilot's voices and engine noises. The other, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), monitors parameters such as altitude, airspeed and heading. The older analog units use one-quarter inch magnetic tape as a storage medium and the newer ones use digital technology and memory chips. Both recorders are installed in the most crash survivable part of the aircraft, usually the tail section.
Each recorder is equipped with an Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB) to assist in locating in the event of an overwater accident. The device called a "pinger", is activated when the recorder is immersed in water. It transmits an acoustical signal on 37.5 KHz that can be detected with a special receiver. The beacon can transmit from depths down to 14,000 feet.

Following an accident, both recorders are immediately removed from the accident site and transported to NTSB headquarters in Washington D.C. for processing. Using sophisticated computer and audio equipment, the information stored on the recorders is extracted and translated into an understandable format. The Investigator-in-Charge uses this information as one of many tools to help the Safety Board determine the Probable Cause of the accident.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/CVR_FDR.htm

Scumbag

08-23-2008, 11:20 AM

Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR) and Flight Data Recorders (FDR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Large commercial aircraft and some smaller commercial, corporate, and private aircraft are required by the FAA to be equipped with two "black boxes" that record information about a flight. Both recorders are installed to help reconstruct the events leading to an aircraft accident. One of these, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), records radio transmissions and sounds in the cockpit, such as the pilot's voices and engine noises. The other, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), monitors parameters such as altitude, airspeed and heading. The older analog units use one-quarter inch magnetic tape as a storage medium and the newer ones use digital technology and memory chips. Both recorders are installed in the most crash survivable part of the aircraft, usually the tail section.
Each recorder is equipped with an Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB) to assist in locating in the event of an overwater accident. The device called a "pinger", is activated when the recorder is immersed in water. It transmits an acoustical signal on 37.5 KHz that can be detected with a special receiver. The beacon can transmit from depths down to 14,000 feet.

Following an accident, both recorders are immediately removed from the accident site and transported to NTSB headquarters in Washington D.C. for processing. Using sophisticated computer and audio equipment, the information stored on the recorders is extracted and translated into an understandable format. The Investigator-in-Charge uses this information as one of many tools to help the Safety Board determine the Probable Cause of the accident.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/CVR_FDR.htm
Yes, twit, but the flight data recorders record information from the instuments within the aircraft. If the instruments aren't calibrated correctly, the information recorded is false.

Scumbag

08-23-2008, 11:24 AM

Jesse Hemingway

08-23-2008, 11:48 AM

Yes, twit, but the flight data recorders record information from the instuments within the aircraft. If the instruments aren't calibrated correctly, the information recorded is false.

Data released by the NTSB in response to an FOIA request by Pilots for 911 Truth are nothing less than the raw "block box' file, the official 'flight data' recorded from Flight 77. It's a digital record of everything that happened on that flight from take off. Additionally, altitude and position are confirmed by the beacon at nearby Reagan National Airport.

Jesse Hemingway

08-23-2008, 12:14 PM

Explain to me how this in any way debunks the eyewitnesses who actually watched the plane fly over head and hit the Pentagon???

You hang your hat on some perceived gap but, you don't give any credence to people who were there and saw it happen.

Why is that?

You’re absolutely correct about the eyewitness that heard and saw explosions in the World Trade Centers. Are those the eyewitness you mean?:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Soupnazi

08-23-2008, 12:21 PM

You’re absolutely correct about the eyewitness that heard and saw explosions in the World Trade Centers. Are those the eyewitness you mean?:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

ANd the ones which saw it hit the pentgon. BTW beacons do not confirm such things

LogicallyYours

08-23-2008, 12:39 PM

Who are you responding to?

Jesse "I trust the gaps, rather than the eyewitnesses" Hemingway

LogicallyYours

08-23-2008, 12:51 PM

You’re absolutely correct about the eyewitness that heard and saw explosions in the World Trade Centers. Are those the eyewitness you mean?:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Actually, there were no eyewitnesses who saw "explosions". What they saw was compressed air blowing out windows as the upper floors compacted. Simply physics.

What they heard, was the same. There is no proof whatsoever of any demolition in ANY of the WTC.

Again, you fail.

LogicallyYours

08-23-2008, 01:05 PM

Jesse Hemingway

08-23-2008, 01:20 PM

ANd the ones which saw it hit the pentgon. BTW beacons do not confirm such things

Prove it soupnazi show me some facts because I am sure there are plenty of lawyers that would give millions because soupnazi, scumbag, and LogicallyYours say the black boxes are a hoax. Soupnazi, scumbag, and LogicallyYours say black boxes have no precedence in litigation, federal law, and airplane accidents invetigation just invalid information.

Well geniuses Soupnazi, scumbag, and Logically Yours you are wasting time here when you can save billions in law suits because black boxes do not work. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Funny thing is it always gets back to the same fact that all this is just bull shit; this should have been settled the moment 9/11 occurred with a real investigation with all witnesses under oath just like any other criminal proceeding. Oh that’s right Bush and Cheney never wanted a real investigation. That leaves the brilliant legal scholars of Soupnazi, scumbag, and Logically Yours accepting the fact that it is a trust us deal by bush and cheney fuck an investigation we need to invade Iraq.

White House Opposed Formation of Commission: President Bush and Vice President Cheney both contacted then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in the months after 9/11 to insist on strict limits in the scope of any investigation into the attacks.

Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks. If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.

That is the only fact that matters:the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission.

LogicallyYours

08-23-2008, 01:25 PM

Prove it soupnazi show me some facts because I am sure there are plenty of lawyers that would give millions because soupnazi, scumbag, and LogicallyYours say the black boxes are a hoax. Soupnazi, scumbag, and LogicallyYours say black boxes have no precedence in litigation, federal law, and airplane accidents invetigation just invalid information.

Well geniuses Soupnazi, scumbag, and Logically Yours you are wasting time here when you can save billions in law suits because black boxes do not work. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Funny thing is it always gets back to the same fact that all this is just bull shit; this should have been settled the moment 9/11 occurred with a real investigation with all witnesses under oath just like any other criminal proceeding. Oh that’s right Bush and Cheney never wanted a real investigation. That leaves the brilliant legal scholars of Soupnazi, scumbag, and Logically Yours accepting the fact that it is a trust us deal by bush and cheney fuck an investigation we need to invade Iraq.

White House Opposed Formation of Commission: President Bush and Vice President Cheney both contacted then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in the months after 9/11 to insist on strict limits in the scope of any investigation into the attacks.

Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks. If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.

That is the only fact that matters:the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission.

And that proves what???

Too me, what it MIGHT say is that, the administration was looking to build a case to invade Iraq and that anything uncovered MIGHT not point too Iraq. I have no proof of this, it's just an opinion....but I don't make the mistake of posting it as fact. (Which we now know they did (facts...see how that works) just that with other evidence.)

Having said that, your post does not in any way point to the Government having a hand in the attacks of 9/11. That's just a huge leap of faith on your part.

disrupter

08-23-2008, 01:27 PM

LogicallyYours

08-23-2008, 01:29 PM

Do you people like being lied to?
is that what this is all about?

Don't want to leave the warm fuzzy lies behind for the cold stark truth?

Welcome to the nightmare your reality has strayed into.

Denying it only allows it to stray further.

Well, there's a post steeped in facts, evidence and proof! What a change from the usual appeal to emotion.

Scumbag

08-23-2008, 01:35 PM

Do you people like being lied to?
is that what this is all about?

Don't want to leave the warm fuzzy lies behind for the cold stark truth?

Welcome to the nightmare your reality has strayed into.

Denying it only allows it to stray further.See what happens when you say yes to drugs!

SAY NO TO DRUGS!

Jesse Hemingway

08-23-2008, 01:39 PM

Again, you all assume the burden of proof falls on the Gov. The Government did not commit this act...while they may have ignored signs that this was in the planning or something was afoot, there is no proof that they had a hand in the events of 9/11.

The burden of proof falls on you, the CT "Truthers" to make your case based on facts and proof. To dates, all you have done to this point is offer nothing but conjecture and point to things unknown and say "See!". None of it holds up.

Furthermore, for any of you CT claims to be true....Literally hundreds of people in not only the Gov but private sector would have had to participate and then.....against all odds....keep this secret.

As a fucking taxpayer that is the fucking minimum I can expect so until there is a real investigation this is just bull shit if you believe the government that is fine. If chose not to believe them I have that fucking right also. There is no debunking 9/11 if the United States government failed to investigate this matter with EVERY possible resource available then they fucked up end of story.

I do not give a fuck what george w.bush said or dick cheney if the failed to follow protocol into this criminal matter as it is documented they did, then why would anyone give a fuck what they said they really are nobody.

Scumbag

08-23-2008, 01:52 PM

Prove it soupnazi show me some facts because I am sure there are plenty of lawyers that would give millions because soupnazi, scumbag, and LogicallyYours say the black boxes are a hoax. Soupnazi, scumbag, and LogicallyYours say black boxes have no precedence in litigation, federal law, and airplane accidents invetigation just invalid information.

Well geniuses Soupnazi, scumbag, and Logically Yours you are wasting time here when you can save billions in law suits because black boxes do not work. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Funny thing is it always gets back to the same fact that all this is just bull shit; this should have been settled the moment 9/11 occurred with a real investigation with all witnesses under oath just like any other criminal proceeding. Oh that’s right Bush and Cheney never wanted a real investigation. That leaves the brilliant legal scholars of Soupnazi, scumbag, and Logically Yours accepting the fact that it is a trust us deal by bush and cheney fuck an investigation we need to invade Iraq.

White House Opposed Formation of Commission: President Bush and Vice President Cheney both contacted then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in the months after 9/11 to insist on strict limits in the scope of any investigation into the attacks.

Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks. If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.

That is the only fact that matters:the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission.
9/11 was not an airline accident. The whole world saw what happened as a terrorist attack on the US. That you are in denial of the facts is testimony to your obvious mental instability.

Whatever was found in the black boxes does not detract from the fact that 4 aircraft were commandeered by a number of terrorists. They were deliberately used as missiles with the sole intention to cause damage and terror among Americans and you conspiracy theory nutbags have played right into their hands. In your sheer panic you have created fantasies in order to explain how theses events have taken place rather than face the truth of the matter.

You are a by-product of careful marketing by those see a fast buck is to be made by whipping up hysteria and casting doubt on the facts.

It's not hard to do. Especially when you are dealing with brain-dead moronic individuals like you and your equally disturbed kooks who will believe practically anything they are told when they are having difficulty dealing with absolute truth. Absolute truth being that which has been witnessed by ones own eyes.

Use all the bolded oversized garbage you want, stupid Jesse. It only serves to confirm how utterly far gone you actually are!

LogicallyYours

08-23-2008, 01:53 PM

As a fucking taxpayer that is the fucking minimum I can expect so until there is a real investigation this is just bull shit if you believe the government that is fine. If chose not to believe them I have that fucking right also. There is no debunking 9/11 if the United States government failed to investigate this matter with EVERY possible resource available then they fucked up end of story.

I do not give a fuck what george w.bush said or dick cheney if the failed to follow protocol into this criminal matter as it is documented they did, then why would anyone give a fuck what they said they really are nobody.

Wow!...you continue to confuse a number of issues...over and over.

First, if the Government didn't plan it....why would you expect them to know all the details and facts beyond reason???

Second, agreed...It should have been handled much better by the administration. Personally, and I think recent history and those leaving the administration have backed up, I believe thie administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq long before the events of 9/11 and that this just fell into their lap. They tried to control the investigative effort as to not take the focus off their objective, Iraq.

Third, again, there is no proof that the Bush administration had a hand in the actual events of 9/11.

You need to learn to seperate the issues to debate about them intelligently.

Jesse Hemingway

08-23-2008, 02:11 PM

Wow!...you continue to confuse a number of issues...over and over.

First, if the Government didn't plan it....why would you expect them to know all the details and facts beyond reason???

Second, agreed...It should have been handled much better by the administration. Personally, and I think recent history and those leaving the administration have backed up, I believe thie administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq long before the events of 9/11 and that this just fell into their lap. They tried to control the investigative effort as to not take the focus off their objective, Iraq.

Third, again, there is no proof that the Bush administration had a hand in the actual events of 9/11.

You need to learn to seperate the issues to debate about them intelligently.

Of course not "Third, again, there is no proof that the Bush administration had a hand in the actual events of 9/11."the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. That is the foundation of an impartial investigation thanks for pointing that out to me I missed it.

LogicallyYours

08-23-2008, 06:46 PM

Of course not "Third, again, there is no proof that the Bush administration had a hand in the actual events of 9/11."the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. That is the foundation of an impartial investigation thanks for pointing that out to me I missed it.

You consider this proof that the Bush administration had something to do with the actual events of 9/11??

I hope you never, ever sit on a jury.

Jesse Hemingway

08-23-2008, 08:13 PM

You consider this proof that the Bush administration had something to do with the actual events of 9/11??

I hope you never, ever sit on a jury.

LogicallyYours you’re saying we had and unobstructed investigation into 9/11 is that correct the United States government used every resource available to discover evidence at the crime scenes? Is that what you are saying?

I hope you never, ever sit on a jury. If I do get on a jury you can bet your sweet ass that this government that has destroyed the United States Constitution will have a hard god dam time convincing me they even have the authority to hold court. When you shit on the United States Constitution do not expect me to play the fucking game with the court system what comes around goes around what can a real American do.

LogicallyYours

08-24-2008, 09:34 AM

LogicallyYours you’re saying we had and unobstructed investigation into 9/11 is that correct the United States government used every resource available to discover evidence at the crime scenes? Is that what you are saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying nor have I ever said that. What I'm saying is, you are making huge leap of faith that because you/we don't have all the answers, that the Bush administration had a hand in planning and carrying out the attacks of 9/11.

While there are gaps of information, there is no proof or evidence that would that points to the administration having a hand in the attacks. I would love to see the next administration impanel an investigative committee with a public oversight group and put an end to all the questions.

As I stated earlier, which seem unable to comprehend, the Bush administration was hell-bent on using the attacks of 9/11 to make a case for invading Iraq....something that people how left his administration have testified to.

You see all too quick to jump from A to Z without seeing anything in between.

I hope you never, ever sit on a jury. If I do get on a jury you can bet your sweet ass that this government that has destroyed the United States Constitution will have a hard god dam time convincing me they even have the authority to hold court. When you shit on the United States Constitution do not expect me to play the fucking game with the court system what comes around goes around what can a real American do.

We agree on this issue. I think the Bush administration has actively sought to undermine the Constitution. Habeas Corpus, protection of unreasonable search and seizure.....et al. Your quickness to convict the current administration for carrying out the attacks of 9/11 is unfounded considering the current lack of evidence and proof.

disrupter

08-24-2008, 09:45 AM

Bush is just a meat puppet for a far deeper, entrenched corruption of the US government.

the Oklahoma city bombing is bogus too.

Their attempt to use an 'anglo-male terrorist' was such a dismal failure that they had to come up with a much deeper cleavage in humanity, of religious-cultural-racial divides.

As far as the NSA is concerned, we American citizens & all of humanity are just pawns to be manipulated to their criminal ends.

911 is the REAL shock & awe, not that pitiful bullying attack on a weak defenseless Iraq.

The NSA is nothing more than a gang of government paid mobsters,
looting & ruining this nation at the taxpayer's & our children's expense.
(see 'Economic Hit Man')

Whether Bush knew or not is pretty trivial to the real problem.
It seems possible Cheney knew,
he is a long-term entrenched corporo-government gangster.

Bush just made the opportunity to do this abomination to the USA all that much easier, because he is a loose, delusional fool.
He may [or even may not] have found out the truth after the fact.
He was so jealous of the NSA's criminal spying on US citizens that he wanted the Whitehouse to have an illegal spying program too.

If Bush weren't such a betrayer of the American people he would almost be a pathetic, tragic character.

LogicallyYours

08-24-2008, 10:09 AM

disrupter

08-24-2008, 11:02 AM

LogicallyYours

08-24-2008, 11:12 AM

No, but there is no evidence that particularly supports their non-involvement either.

their certainly were crucial in NOT investigating it.

Of course imagining the little alcoholic fool Bush was going to be a Nexus of sanity under the immense pressures of 911 is like believing in Santa Claus.

No, but there is no evidence that particularly supports their non-involvement either.

You're asking to prove a negative. Not possible. You cannot assume because there is no evidence to the contrary, that position.

That's akin to me saying, "You molest collies". Prove me wrong.

I think there is plenty of evidence that supports the administration ignored warning of the previous administration, made up evidence and then cherry-pick intel that would support there case.

I would like to see these issues investigated and if found to be valid, held accountable.

disrupter

08-24-2008, 11:21 AM

LogicallyYours

08-24-2008, 12:00 PM

They assisted the cover up.

Does it really matter if they knew or not?

negligent homicide is STILL homicide.

You willingly take the reigns of power & i WILL hold you accountable in my book.

Capital incompetence.

If you are extracting a life threatening tumor are you really going to quibble about a few cells in a billion celled organism?
unless infinite resources including time are at my disposal i am not.
are you?

sometimes it just comes down to triage.

If you don't have enough respect for the office of president or the reigns of power to know some fear then you should be immediately shot.
That goes equally for not respecting the law of 'unintended consequences'.
collateral effect.

Powell understood.

You miss my point entirely.

The CT Truthers are conflating 2 issues:

A. the Bush administration knew and did nothing to prevent the attacks of 9/11.

B. the Bush administration planned and executed the attacks of 9/11.

There is a HUGE difference between the two. There is some proof for the first. There is no proof for the second, and lack of dis-proof ( not sure that's even a word) does not prove the thsecond. While you may believe it in your soul...that does not hold up to proof.

There is a HUGE difference.

Again, while I agree this admistration has undermined the Constitution, deceived this country into a war, allowed the economy to run off the rails, made big business even wealthier at the demise of the middle class, pandered d to the Religious Right, underminded Science by it's support of "Intelligent Design" BS "teach the controversy"....ALL of which there is proof to support...I cannot buy into the 9/11 myths as there is no proof.

disrupter

08-24-2008, 01:24 PM

LogicallyYours

08-26-2008, 09:02 AM

Someone incested in/with our government carried it out.

Isn't that the essential issue?

Bush may be a happy idiot.
But since he willingly chose to take the reigns of power, there may be consequences.
Independent of 911, he is a war criminal, i could really give a fuck what happens to him,

except that not removing Cheney & him from all power is treason against this nation.

Putin is who the neocons all wish they could be.
He is about as exactly within reality what they all want to be.

Why is it you continue to treat all these arguments as one?

You have no proof that our government planned and executed the acts of 9/11. Just because you despise the current administration, as I do but for logical reasons, does not mean or prove that they had anything to do with the attack on the WTC or the Pentagon.

I agree that they should be held accountable for their failures and deceptions of what can be proved. But to continue to spread misinformation about what not provable, is just disingenuous.

Scumbag

08-26-2008, 11:33 AM

Why is it you continue to treat all these arguments as one?

You have no proof that our government planned and executed the acts of 9/11. Just because you despise the current administration, as I do but for logical reasons, does not mean or prove that they had anything to do with the attack on the WTC or the Pentagon.

I agree that they should be held accountable for their failures and deceptions of what can be proved. But to continue to spread misinformation about what not provable, is just disingenuous.

Pointing out that Disrupter is spreading misinformation and suggesting he is disingenuous will, sadly, not get you anywhere, LY.

This sad little person (PC) honestly believes every stupid thing he says...

disrupter

08-27-2008, 10:34 PM

You don't get access to a global hawk [or predator] drone without access to government.
Almost certainly what hit the pentagon was some kind of non-explosive missile, again acquiring & launching meant access to government facilities.

Israelis WERE CAUGHT blowing up a van & driving a truck full of explosives on Manhattan on 911,
as reported on FOX news.

Why has this not been investigated?
I don't care what way you paint it there are elements in this very government who have conspired to attack & deceive us about it.

Why, because they don't want the truth,
they just used it as a political foil to goad the Shocked American public into two costly, terrorist creating adventures.

It is like numb-o has been poured into the American water supply,
or more practically we are so over fed our brains couldn't respond appropriately even if we wanted.

You have a million reporters covering the fluff & sales-pitch of the Democratic Convention, and no one digging the real dirt, doing the real work to uncover of the mountains of corruption in Washington DC.
We have been distracted, blown off course of the truth, with a bunch of phony liars throwing a party,
a cynical party.

Much of it lies with the American people themselves.
I was brought up expecting more.
disappointed, again.
oh, well.

Soupnazi

08-27-2008, 10:39 PM

You don't get access to a global hawk [or predator] drone without access to government.
Almost certainly what hit the pentagon was some kind of non-explosive missile, again acquiring & launching meant access to government facilities.

Israelis WERE CAUGHT blowing up a van & driving a truck full of explosives on Manhattan on 911,
as reported on FOX news.

Why has this not been investigated?
I don't care what way you paint it there are elements in this very government who have conspired to attack & deceive us about it.

Why, because they don't want the truth,
they just used it as a political foil to goad the Shocked American public into two costly, terrorist creating adventures.
This assertion has been proven wrong the overwhelming evidence is that what hit the pentagon was the airliner NOT a missile or drone no credible evidence disputes that fact as has been proven exhaustively by the posts in this thread. Also fox has no record of any such rfeport about israelies and explosives

disrupter

08-27-2008, 10:42 PM

If thine eyes offend thee cut them out.

I will trust my eyes, & you can believe in stories, ok?

America is still mostly free, for as long as it lasts.

Soupnazi

08-28-2008, 12:22 AM

If thine eyes offend thee cut them out.

I will trust my eyes, & you can believe in stories, ok?

America is still mostly free, for as long as it lasts.

How can you trust your eyes when you were not there to see it those who were prove you wrong

Scumbag

08-28-2008, 06:49 AM

Scumbag

08-28-2008, 06:54 AM

This assertion has been proven wrong the overwhelming evidence is that what hit the pentagon was the airliner NOT a missile or drone no credible evidence disputes that fact as has been proven exhaustively by the posts in this thread. Also fox has no record of any such rfeport about israelies and explosives
Oh, it's there alright. But it was a false report as was pointed out, on FOX, when it was realized it was just a rumor. Yes a truck was stopped. Did it contain explosives? NO!

Disprupter didn't hear the part that said it was false because he was too busy ranting at the top of his lungs that the whole thing was a government conspiracy.

:D

disrupter

08-28-2008, 04:18 PM

The FOX report on the Israelis of 911 is on utube, dipshit.

My God you people are SUCH LIARS.

ProudAussie

08-29-2008, 09:12 PM

The FOX report on the Israelis of 911 is on utube, dipshit.

My God you people are SUCH LIARS.

Hate to burst your bubble here Mate but I'd take anything shown on Fox with a grain of salt. (CNN is no better.)
It's no longer a case of "we report you decide" cos these days it's "we report what we want you to think".

It's nuts to even consider that the report could have been true when you consider what % of those in the towers were Jews.:)

LogicallyYours

08-29-2008, 09:48 PM

If thine eyes offend thee cut them out.

I will trust my eyes, & you can believe in stories, ok?

America is still mostly free, for as long as it lasts.

You can talk of drones and missiles all you like. EYE WITNESSES saw the plane impact the Pentagon....from many different and independent vantage points.

Ignoring and evidence as this proves your dishonesty in continuing the debate with "drones" when there is not one bit of evidence or proof.

You think you are looking for the truth...what you should be looking for is help.

disrupter

08-29-2008, 09:50 PM

People of every virtually every type & class were in the WTC,

These are fanatics, they will sacrifice a lot.
Religious fanatics who believe in a fantasy here-after don't consider suicide death, let alone anyone else.

Let's be very clear & distinguish between Israelis & Jews.
There are many patriotic American Jews who know where they live & put this nation, their nation first.
There are many radical Christian & Jewish factions who are in fact traitors to this nation's interests, as well as a lot of traitorous economic & political factions who only care about acquiring power & or wealth at any cost to other people.

Btw i take all reports with a grain of salt but no one has ever come forward to refute the claims made by actual FOX journalists, before their corrupt corporate bosses yanked it.

Since no one objectively, factually refuted it, leaves it seeming to be true.

disrupter

08-29-2008, 09:54 PM

LogicallyYours

08-29-2008, 10:27 PM

Logically,
Do you have eyewitnesses talking about how it melted into the building?
The black box has it flying over the pentagon, but at 273 feet, not skimming the ground at 6 to 9 feet.

Are you sure they didn't just put two & two together?
a low flying plane & connected that with an explosion that happened a minute or two later?

My God!....Did I stutter!!! (dramatic effect)....Eye Witnesses watched the plane fly down and HIT the Pentagon. HIT<---------they saw it HIT...get it???

There were no eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane (airliner) fly over the Pentagon, at low altitude, fly away and then the Pentagon exploded!!! ...NONE!!!

You know why???...because if they had been an airliner that did this, just before the Pentagon exploded....THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN IT AND TESTIFIED TO THAT HAPPENING!!!!!...BUT MYSTERIOUSLY, NO ONE DID!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Scumbag

08-29-2008, 11:53 PM

The FOX report on the Israelis of 911 is on utube, dipshit.

My God you people are SUCH LIARS.
No explosives!
Watch the video at the bottom of the page.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_..._of_explosives

LogicallyYours

08-30-2008, 08:35 AM

Dude, links not working.

Soupnazi

08-30-2008, 12:05 PM

The FOX report on the Israelis of 911 is on utube, dipshit.

My God you people are SUCH LIARS.

So is the retraction which states they were wrong and there were no explosives in that truck you retard

Soupnazi

08-30-2008, 12:07 PM

disrupter

08-30-2008, 01:50 PM

So the two guys driving the van who ran away when stopped by police were innocent?

and from the audio:
officer: we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drive…drove in the van and that explodedhttp://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/230407vans.htm

so the police officer was lying?

exploding or not exploding is not some ambiguous shades of grey kind of thing.

Now we should trust the same government officials that had the CIA forge a letter about WMDs existing in Iraq to cover their fiasco there?

disrupter

08-30-2008, 01:56 PM

The van was from 'Urban Moving Systems' which is a front for Mossad.

disrupter

08-30-2008, 02:04 PM

Urban Moving Systems
was a moving company based in New Jersey, USA and headed by Dominick Suter.

Urban Moving Systems received $665,000 from the United States government according to U.S. government records.

Suter was questioned by the FBI on September 12, 2001 then fled the country September 14, 2001.

[1] [2]. A suspicious van traced to Urban Moving Systems was reported with occupants recording the collapse of the World Trade Center. According to FBI sources, Urban Moving Systems may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Moving_Systems

disrupter

08-30-2008, 02:18 PM

quite odd,
Urban Moving System's Warehouse in New Jersey tests

positive for anthrax?

http://undertheradarmedia.blogspot.com/2008/06/urban-moving-systems-us-israel-911.html

I am trying to find a copy of the aircraft plunging into New York logo from the side of the vans but haven't been able to so far.
anyone know where a copy of that image might be?

How arrogant.
They display exactly what they intend to do or at least know about ahead of time right on the side of the vans.

Being a mass murderer must just be a hoot & a half.
they must laugh their asses off at all the unknowing public.

Scumbag

08-30-2008, 10:01 PM

Dude, links not working.

Thanks LY!

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_truckload_of_explosives

disrupter

08-31-2008, 01:16 AM

So if anthrax traces were found at the Weehawken New Jersey Warehouse of 'Urban Moving Systems', I can't imagine that is a common thing to find.

The anthrax letters have only been specified as being mailed from New Jersey.

They could find no hard evidence of Ivans ever being in New Jersey at the time of the mailings,
but they had a pretty far fetched story of him having some obsession with a sorority?

Me thinks we have a much better suspect for the anthrax letters.
The Mossad Agents at Urban Moving Systems.

On September 14, 2005, WMR reported: “There are indications that Israeli national Dominik Suter, the former head of

Urban Moving Systems in Weehawken, NJ

is back in the United States, this time in south Florida and may be using his actual name. An informed source claims that Suter is working for an aviation-related firm in south Florida. The firm is reportedly involved in parts locating for the aerospace and aviation industries.Suter ran the Weehawken, NJ-based moving company on 9-11 when a number of Urban Moving Systems vans were spotted around north Jersey before and after the hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center. One Urban Moving van was seen at Liberty State Park in Jersey City as the first plane hit the towers. The five occupants, all Israeli nationals, were seen videotaping and celebrating the attack and were dressed in Arab clothing. The five were later arrested near Giant Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ. One of the Israelis told police they were at Liberty State Park to ‘document the event.’

After the Israelis were detained for several months in Brooklyn as terrorist suspects, they were quickly deported to Israel. After the FBI questioned Suter on September 11, he fled the United States on September 14, 2001. The FBI was due to question Suter again before he fled the country. Later,

Federal law enforcement agents discovered pipes, caps, explosive chemical materials, and traces of

anthrax

at the Weehawken [New Jersey] warehouse.

Suter’s name and those of some of his moving employees turned up in a CIA database of foreign intelligence agents. Suter’s name also appeared on an FBI 9-11 terrorism suspect. http://wacla.org/2008/07/01/wayne-madsen-more-on-mysterious-urban-moving-systems/

disrupter

08-31-2008, 04:11 PM

The name that seems to pop up in association with the Anthrax killings is Dr. Philip M. Zack[erie].

Documents from the inquiry show that one unauthorized person who was observed entering the lab building at night was Langford's predecessor,
Lt. Col. Philip Zack,
who at the time no longer worked at Fort Detrick.
A surveillance camera recorded Zack being let in at 8:40 p.m. on Jan. 23, 1992, apparently by Dr. Marian Rippy, a lab pathologist and close friend of Zack's, according to a report filed by a security guard.http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/hcourant.html

Fort Detrick is, i believe the lab where Ivans worked & Zack[erie] was his former boss according to this.

A lot of assertions of Philip M. Zackerie being a Mossad agent & noting his dual Israeli-US citizenship.

Here it is claimed Ivins was negotiating to testify against Zackerie when Mossad agents used rat poison to kill him.
No official autopsy report has been released on Ivins according to this.
It can now be reported that the late Fort Detrick, Maryland U.S. military research scientist,
Dr. Bruce E. Ivins,
who was being treated for depression,
was murdered at Frederick Memorial Hospital in Maryland by an rogue Israeli MOSSAD assassination team
that smuggled rat poison into the hospital and spiked his cranberry juice.
Ivins and his attorney, Paul F. Kemp, were actually negotiating a plea bargain with elements of the U.S. Justice Department that would have led to the indictment of former Fort Detrick laboratory scientist, dual ISRAELI-U.S. citizen,
Dr. Philip M. Zackerie aka Dr. Zack,
for sending the anthrax letters
that led to the death of numerous people post 9/11.

It was Zackerie, who previously supervised Ivins, that was photographed handling the strain of lethal anthrax that wound up in the envelopes sent after 9/11.
Again, the use of DNA splicing enabled Zackerie to turn vaccines into the actual lethal strains of anthrax.

Note: It is clear now that the late Bruce Ivins is the latest mass media-U.S. government patsy that will be used by the criminal Bushfraud ILLEGAL occupation government to take the fall for its crimes.Item: Let us remember that
no official autopsy has been released on the death of Bruce Ivins.
Note: Brian Ross, i.e. Rosenberg, of ABC News put out the false story leaked to him by the Bushfraud Administration that Iraq was behind the post 9/11 anthrax letters when Ross was completely aware, as was the Bushfraud Administration, that it was Israeli MOSSAD agent Dr. Philip M. Zackerie and then Assistant U.S. Attorney General and TRAITOR Michael Chertoff, that coordinated the anthrax letters to be circulated through the compromised U.S.-New Jersey postal service to their destinations on the East Coast.

Item: It was the well reported 9/11 linked New Jersey Israeli Urban Moving Systems gang that assisted in the anthrax letters being mailed.

Again folks, there is NO proof at all that Bruce Ivins sent any anthrax letters. There was NO Bushfraud Justice Department case against Dr. Steven Hatfill and there was NO Justice Department case against the late Bruce Ivins.
Tom Heneghan ,August 2,2008
http://blog.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel

Related:

Anthrax Articles From The Hartford Courant

Israeli Mossad agent Dr. Philip M. Zackerie's unauthorized entry after hours at the Fort Detrick laboratory

Documents from the inquiry show that one unauthorized person who was observed entering the lab building at night was Langford's predecessor, Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who at the time no longer worked at Fort Detrick. A surveillance camera recorded Zack being let in at 8:40 p.m. on Jan. 23, 1992, apparently by Dr. Marian Rippy, a lab pathologist and close friend of Zack's, according to a report filed by a security guard -- Hartford Courant http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/hcourant.htmlhttp://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=221180&mode=linear

My money would be on this Dr. Zack character for the anthrax killings.
Ivins may or may not have been complicit, but Zach was the linchpin.

So far other than the assertions that Zack is Mossad links him to Urban Moving Systems, a Mossad front operation,
but there are traces of anthrax that have been found at the Urban Moving System's Weehawken, NJ warehouse.

disrupter

08-31-2008, 04:24 PM

Also the hair found as evidence in association with the letters doesn't match Ivin's DNA.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/hair_doesnt_match_anthrax_susp.html

LogicallyYours

09-01-2008, 08:25 AM

Also the hair found as evidence in association with the letters doesn't match Ivin's DNA.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/hair_doesnt_match_anthrax_susp.html

....and this has what to do with the airliner crash at the Pentagon???

GD! you you jump from topic to topic!

disrupter

09-01-2008, 11:56 AM

Scumbag

09-01-2008, 12:54 PM

....and this has what to do with the airliner crash at the Pentagon???

GD! you you jump from topic to topic!
It's the drugs!

Has to be the drugs!

:lmao2: :lmao2:

Scumbag

09-01-2008, 01:00 PM

No, it is a natural outgrowth from examining the 911 connections to 'Urban Moving Systems'.

I realize that following a thread of logic may prove difficult for you.

it isn't all made up of plastic icon tokens.

Maybe you should go back to pre-school logic until you can handle more subtle & precise paths of logic.

It seems apparent that Mossad was one of the principles in the 911 attack.
Oh, so that's it!

You're using pre-school logic! :thumbsup:

That explains it all! :lmao2:

Maybe you should change your supplier. The one you're using now is cutting your coke with hallucinogens! Nice effect, but it addles the brain!

:lmao2:

LogicallyYours

09-01-2008, 01:13 PM

No, it is a natural outgrowth from examining the 911 connections to 'Urban Moving Systems'.

I realize that following a thread of logic may prove difficult for you.

it isn't all made up of plastic icon tokens.

Maybe you should go back to pre-school logic until you can handle more subtle & precise paths of logic.

It seems apparent that Mossad was one of the principles in the 911 attack.

No, what you have attempted it to run away or switch topics when you were unable to prove your last, and all points.

You have gone from arguing that the government planned and participated (which you were unable to provide anything but conjecture) the events of 9/11 to now saying that Mossad planned and participated in the 9/11 attack.

Oh, by they way....only condescend when you have the brains and facts to back up your position.

You don't.

disrupter

09-01-2008, 01:35 PM

LogicallyYours

09-03-2008, 06:35 PM

And the 'employees' of United Moving Systems', an admitted Mossad front operation, who were ALREADY PRE-POSITIONED to dance, laugh, film & celebrate the collapse of the WTC safely from New Jersey means nothing to you?

Well the people who lived there were disturbed enough to call the police.

Only our Israeli corrupted government did nothing.

I have seen the video at the pentagon,
and physics doesn't lie.

Americans, do you like being lied to?
Has ANYONE besides the New York Times apologized for the WMDs deception?

Maybe other Americans just don't give a damn.
I live here,
i do.

First, what you know about physics, I could shove up a gnats ass and have room for an ice cube.

Second, EYE WITNESSES SAW THE PLANE IMPACT THE PENTAGON AND THE WTC. YOU LOSE.

Maybe other Americans just don't give a damn.
I live here,
i do.

Nice attempt at assuming the moral high ground. Most American's do give a damn...Thats why WE get pissed when those of you in the Truther movement dishonor all of those who perished in the events of 9/11 with your stupidity and dishonesty.

disrupter

09-03-2008, 10:24 PM

LogicallyYours

09-03-2008, 10:32 PM

I think most of us are familiar with film, light & images being recorded.

most of us are familiar with inertia, mass & that matter remains in existence unless it is consumed into energy. Air turbulance, two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time.

You are familiar with using psychology to deceive people.
In a word, LIARS.

I don't think you are familiar with reality. Your posts don't prove a thing. They don't even rise to the level of proof.

I think most of us are familiar with what happens when a plane impacts a solid object at over 400 mph....AND THAT DARN STICKING POINT OF ALL THE INDEPENDENT EYE WITNESSESS WHO ACTUALLY SAW THE AIRLINER IMPACT THE BUILDING.

You have........uuuummmmm.....what?

It's telling how you chose to ingore first-hand, eye witness accounts in lieu of conjecture and debunked information.

disrupter

09-04-2008, 09:07 AM

A plane really isn't that 'solid'
it has to be light/hollow so it can fly.

Stopping its forward momentum is much easier than for a solid dense rock. Further it is elongated in shape.
What the structural stress/load capacities are i am not certain of, but they are a certainty of reality.
The tail section had to have slowed down as the fuselage impacted over its length, from front to tail.

The engines are designed to shear off on impact. precisely so they don't rip the wings off.

personal eyewitness accounts have been shown, time & time again to be faulty.

People believe there is some peterpan religious after-life for goodness sake.
sorry, but people by themselves are very often NOT reliable accountants.
People have a strong propensity to be mush brained.

LogicallyYours

09-04-2008, 11:29 PM

disrupter

09-05-2008, 04:39 AM

The video is far better eyewitness evidence.

No plane.

it also shows a small white aircraft skimming the ground from another trajectory.

btw how does a plane skimming the ground go through landscaping, construction spools in front of the Pentagon by a novice pilot where flying that low creates air turbulence problems?

Your brain operates in some alternate universe where i guess the physics of THIS universe don't apply.

Scumbag

09-05-2008, 09:28 AM

The video is far better eyewitness evidence.That would apply if there was a video camera filming. Which there wasn't!
it also shows a small white aircraft skimming the ground from another trajectory.This is new!! Still making it up as you go.

btw how does a plane skimming the ground go through landscaping, construction spools in front of the Pentagon by a novice pilot where flying that low creates air turbulence problems?Show the physics that says this is impossible! Go and ask an independent expert. Just don't get too pissed when he laughs in your face!

Your brain operates in some alternate universe where i guess the physics of THIS universe don't apply.What you know about physics you could write on the head of a pin!

Have a read of this (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml)! If you can understand it, I would be happy to discuss any of the points made in relation to the physics explained in the article.

Of course, if you would prefer not to, I will understand!

"These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11."

Jesse Hemingway

09-14-2008, 03:48 PM

Prove it soupnazi show me some facts because I am sure there are plenty of lawyers that would give millions because soupnazi, scumbag, and LogicallyYours say the black boxes are a hoax. Soupnazi, scumbag, and LogicallyYours say black boxes have no precedence in litigation, federal law, and airplane accidents invetigation just invalid information.

Well geniuses Soupnazi, scumbag, and Logically Yours you are wasting time here when you can save billions in law suits because black boxes do not work. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Funny thing is it always gets back to the same fact that all this is just bull shit; this should have been settled the moment 9/11 occurred with a real investigation with all witnesses under oath just like any other criminal proceeding. Oh that’s right Bush and Cheney never wanted a real investigation. That leaves the brilliant legal scholars of Soupnazi, scumbag, and Logically Yours accepting the fact that it is a trust us deal by bush and cheney fuck an investigation we need to invade Iraq.

White House Opposed Formation of Commission: President Bush and Vice President Cheney both contacted then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in the months after 9/11 to insist on strict limits in the scope of any investigation into the attacks.

Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks. If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.

That is the only fact that matters:the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission.

All you nut cases that bought the United States government version of 9/11 they just changed the facts of the story again.

On 7th Anniversary Of Attacks, White House Claims Bin Laden Was Not The ‘Mastermind’ of Sept. 11
Tomorrow marks the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In a press conference today, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about the administration’s ongoing efforts to find Osama bin Laden, calling him the “mastermind” of 9/11. Perino interrupted the reporter, claiming bin Laden was not the true “mastermind” of the attacks:

Q But Osama bin Laden is the one that — you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 –

PERINO: No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he’s sitting in jail right now.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/seventh-anniversary-white-house/

Soupnazi

09-20-2008, 10:11 AM

All you nut cases that bought the United States government version of 9/11 they just changed the facts of the story again.

On 7th Anniversary Of Attacks, White House Claims Bin Laden Was Not The ‘Mastermind’ of Sept. 11
Tomorrow marks the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In a press conference today, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about the administration’s ongoing efforts to find Osama bin Laden, calling him the “mastermind” of 9/11. Perino interrupted the reporter, claiming bin Laden was not the true “mastermind” of the attacks:

Q But Osama bin Laden is the one that — you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 –

PERINO: No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he’s sitting in jail right now.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/seventh-anniversary-white-house/
You keep switching from one topic to another and none of them are related . None of your latest posts has anything to do with the nutty conspiracy theories which this thread was about and which were totally destroyed in this thread.

Jesse Hemingway

09-20-2008, 01:00 PM

This is the first entry on this thread dated 9/14/2006
Let's see NO WAY, would the United States government be involved in with letting 9/11 happen. If there was a real investigation that should have been demanded by the United States government after 9/11 had occurred. If we had legitimate investigation the information Condi Rice omitted about the July 10, 2001 meeting concerning Al-Cia-Da that is a serous crime and only implicates the United States government as will full co-conspirators by failure of omission. (AKA FRAUD)

Yet failing to stop 9/11 is a FREE pass for this United States government to implement a predetermined plan to where we are at now.

I think you fellows should just keep whistling threw the facts of the milieu of 9/11.

Let's connect the dots with the facts that the government omitted.

The ape boy got the infamous PDB written notice on August 6, 2001 that bin laden determined to strike U.S. There is NO excuse by the United States Military to have such massive drills on 9/11/2001 when there was a pending or the possibility of a threat that existed. This decision to hold all the military exercises on 9/11 is surly an indictment of the leadership with in the United States Government.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Of course I know that the drills were just a cover for the people behind the attacks.

Now who received the written notice bin laden determined to attack the United States on August 6, 2001 and who all knew that these massive military drills were going to occur on 9/11? and who knew about both of these pieces of information? Once you have narrowed that group down with both pieces of information of that group who had the authority to stop or postpone the Military drills on 9/11? Now you have a very small group of people. From that group find out how many in that group were original signing members of The Project for a New American Century? (PNAC). At that point you have isolated the individual or individuals that had a plan in place for an incedent like 9/11 years prior to 9/11/2001 (Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz) that had enough information to be involved from the inside. Jeb Bush the ape boys brother and in charge of the State the Ape boy was in when the crime went down. Of course Ape boy too. Bin ladens family in florida with daddy bush watching USA-MA-de bin laden's handy work on the American people the morning of 9/11.

word game what can you make out of this name Zalmay Khalilzad da

You keep switching from one topic to another and none of them are related . None of your latest posts has anything to do with the nutty conspiracy theories which this thread was about and which were totally destroyed in this thread.

Soupnazi: The thread is titled 9/11 stuff and from the start I have said there was never a real investigation into 9/11 or ALL the anomalies that occurred that day. People take conflicting aspects to 9/11 on this thread which only reinforces the fact that United States Government failed to hold a through investigation.

Secondly it is a thread that people can add new information surrounding 9/11 because the United States Government failed miserable by some ones direction, and will not conduct a real Investigation. Many people that support the United States government version of 9/11 have been limited to any new information or evidence and are restricted by the absolutely most corrupted Presidential administration in our country’s history.

If any person fails to grasp the reality that George W. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court of the United States by one vote; that in its self is a violation of the United States Constitution. Then it NOW rest on We The People to over compensate on our Vigilances to reestablish some type of integrity to the United States Constitution and the United States Government.

The most patriotic thing that any United States American citizen can do is make all their elected representatives prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt that their actions and words are true.

On 12/12/2000 we entered a new age when the United States Supreme Court picked George W. Bush after crossing that threshold; We the People were reduced to our collective vigilance for survival. –Jesse Hemingway

"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

"Voting is no substitute for the eternal vigilance that every friend of freedom must demonstrate towards government. If our freedom is to survive, Americans must become far better informed of the dangers from Washington -- regardless of who wins the Presidency." -James Bovard

Thomas Jefferson:
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"History, in general, only informs us what bad government is."

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” -- John F. Kennedy, 1963

"One man with courage makes a majority." -- Andrew Jackson, 1832

“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” -- Edmund Burke

"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur

jonspeaks22

09-26-2008, 04:50 PM

so when are we gonna do something about it?

Jesse Hemingway

09-29-2008, 10:33 PM

POLITICS-US: Bush Had No Plan to Catch Bin Laden after 9/11
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 29 (IPS) - New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.

That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the theatre to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept them, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.

On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border.

The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.

Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Centre for Strategic Studies at the National Defence University.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44054

Jesse Hemingway

10-02-2008, 11:51 PM

FBI Prevents Agents from Telling 'Truth' About 9/11 on PBS

By Jeff Stein

October 1, 2008 6:00 AM
The FBI has blocked two of its veteran counterterrorism agents from going public with accusations that the CIA deliberately withheld crucial intelligence before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

FBI Special Agents Mark Rossini and Douglas Miller have asked for permission to appear in an upcoming public television documentary, scheduled to air in January, on pre-9/11 rivalries between the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

The program is a spin-off from The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, by acclaimed investigative reporter James Bamford, due out in a matter of days.

The FBI denied Rossini and Miller permission to participate in the book or the PBS "NOVA" documentary, which is also being written and produced by Bamford, on grounds that the FBI "doesn't want to stir up old conflicts with the CIA," according to multiple reliable sources.
Bamford, contacted by phone, said he could not comment because his publisher has embargoed his new book for release around Oct. 10.

The author of two other ground-breaking books on the NSA, Bamford also said his general policy is not to discuss his negotiations for interviews with intelligence agencies.

Pre-9/11 intelligence mishaps have been generally attributed to bureaucratic screw-ups -- a "failure to connect the dots," exacerbated by spy agency rivalries.

But Rossini and Miller, who were assigned to the CIA-run Counterterrorist Center during the run-up to the 9/11 attacks, are prepared to describe on camera how the CIA blocked them from sharing crucial intelligence with FBI headquarters - and then later pressured them not to tell the truth to investigators.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2008/10/fbi-prevents-agents-from-telli.html

ROdger Right

11-21-2008, 12:40 AM

plus we needed more heorin from afghanistan, is that a motive?almost 0%-90% in 7 years not to bad

Jesse Hemingway

11-24-2008, 12:02 PM

A mutually exclusive act of terrorism NOT
By: Jesse Hemingway

Is this what a country does the United States of America that was allegedly attacked by terrorists on 9/11 flood the world markets with worthless investment securities devices. Not only deluge the world’s investment foundations with fraudulent investment instruments masquerade them in such a calculated sinister process. Remember a significant amount of these securities devices were sold to the world as “mortgage back investments”. In which case the unsuspected buyers world wide would deem them without a great amount of risk; thinking that the investment was highly secured with real estate as collateral. Before I lay out what is appearing more like criminal fraud by the second, it was in most part created by the George W. Bush Administration that inflicted far more global financial terrorism then Osama Bin Laden could have ever come up with in his wildest dreams.

In the article below there was way too much truth telling for our idiotic society to comprehend. The item I referenced below is the $62,000,000,000,000.00 of questionable paper just in 2008. It started in 2001 at 900 billion and has swelled year by year to the 62 trillion figures. That is one hell of a growth line in those questionable investment papers. I understand that the Bush administration is keeping the total financial damage a secret until they pop it open on their way out. That questionable investment papers represent year to year growth matrix in trillions dollar increase each year from 2001 or (this is just a reference growth matrix the only two numbers from the article are the years of 2001 and 2008):
2001 = $900,000,000,000.00
2002 = $8, 650, 000, 000,000.00
2003 = $18,000,000,000,000.00
2004 = $27,150,000,000,000.00
2005 = $35,900,000,000.000.00
2006 = $45,650,000,000,000.00
2007 = $54,400,000,000,000.00
2008 = $62,000,000,000,000.00

Plug in any percentage rate as a factor for each year to factor out the questionable investment and you have the true finical damaged caused by the Bush administration. The accumulated amount from 2001 through 2008 is $236,450,000,000,000.00.

THE RECKONING
Deregulator Looks Back, Unswayed
By ERIC LIPTON and STEPHEN LABATON
Published: November 16, 2008

Increasingly, institutions were trading the derivatives instruments that Mr. Gramm had helped escape the scrutiny of regulators. UBS was collecting hundreds of millions of dollars from credit-default swaps. (Mr. Gramm said he was not involved in that activity at the bank.) In 2001, a year after passage of the commodities law, the derivatives market insured about $900 billion worth of credit; by last year, the number had swelled to $62 trillion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1226983900-iExTWxn5hsVh0MQQ82idVQ

The critical component needed for Alan Greenspan to create the world’s largest Ponzi scheme; was not the individual home buyer cooking their home loan application to get a loan on an over inflated house. That aspect was a single occurring independent action, not the policy of Freddie or Fannie. Although, many of those individual mortgages had mortgage insurance incorporated in the loans and those polices should be identified and the insurance against default be collected. The Ponzi scheme created by the Alan Greenspan was the exponential growth of each of the independent actions and the bundling of these home loans into Tranches; at that point Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve System embarked on fraud. On January 22, 1997 Alan Greenspan stated at the Senate Budget Committee “As I see it, heightened job insecurity ... explains a significant part of the restraint on (wages), and the consequent muted price inflation," job insecurity becomes Alan Greenspan method to hold down increases in wages to avoid wage inflation.

As each of these Tranches was developed and bundled the median housed hold incoming began to increase rapidly relative to each of the new bundle Tranches.

(References: [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi3.html] [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html]

2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113)
Using the 2006 median income of $43.460.00 as a reference point and the median home price in the united states in 2006 was $221,900.00 then inflated income was required to make these loan ratios work.

(References: [http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/files/MSAPRICESF.pdf/$FILE/MSAPRICESF.pdf]
[http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/mortgages/20071012-ford.html])

Those national statistics of increased wages should have initiated a severe alarm at the Federal Reserve System. Alan Greenspan as the head of Federal Reserve System and his fundamental philosophy of low wage inflation with the reality of yearly growing national statistics of increased wages stated on home loans trending off the charts is and indication of complete fraudulent neglect at the Federal Reserve.

Those national statistics of increased wages should also sound an alarm at the insurance companies that were insuring and underwriting the Tranches. I would imagine that many of those insurance companies had access to banking corporations’ statistics and to the volume of these loans. Rational business policy would dictate that at some point these insurances corporations’ knew full well that they could not cover the pending default rate.

On July 23, 2008 President George W. Bush cavalierly brushed of the pending global financial disaster as a conceited joke to a group of his supporters in Texas. Do to nature and the magnitude of this financial catastrophe President George W. Bush should also be held personally liable for not talking action months sooner. George W. Bush on July 23, 2008 incriminated himself with his former Federal Reserve chairman and the present along with the Sectary of the Treasury at that moment in time; as accomplices. President George W. Bush holds a MBA from the Harvard Business School leaving his failure not to respond to this crisis much sooner as a criminal act in my opinion.

Bush says Wall Street ‘got drunk’
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Published: July 23 2008 01:19 | Last updated: July 23 2008 01:19
President George W. Bush said Wall Street had “got drunk” and was experiencing a hangover at a recent closed-door fundraiser in Houston in which he also made light of the US housing crisis.
In a video recording that emerged on Tuesday, Mr Bush questioned how long Wall Street banks would remain sober and “not try to do all these fancy financial instruments”.
[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ceb6551a-584c-11dd-b02f-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1]
[http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/02/gwb_hbs_mba.html]
The Partisan Chairman
originally published in The New York Times, 6.6.04
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/MaestroSlipsOutofTune.html

“In the first days of the Bush administration, as we've seen, Greenspan gave decisive aid and comfort to the new president, urging Congress to cut taxes in order to prevent excessive budget surpluses. Three years and at least $900 billion in additional debt later, that argument seems ludicrous. And besides giving bad advice, Greenspan was engaging in highly questionable behavior. Since then, rather than make amends, he has compounded the sin.

As an institution, the Federal Reserve is set up more like the Supreme Court than like an ordinary government agency. Members of the Federal Reserve Board serve for long terms; chairmen typically serve across several administrations from both parties. There's a reason for this: economists often argue that the Fed, like the Supreme Court, must be insulated from the political process so that it can make necessary but unpopular decisions. The quid pro quo for this insulation, however, is that the Fed must stand above the political fray. Like Supreme Court justices, the members of the Fed board undermine the rationale for their independence if they use their power for partisan purposes.”
Terrorism has the same intended result whether it is violent human destruction or a global financial catastrophe only the terrorist really knows what their calculated results will yield and their immoral intentions really are. Do we as a global society truly lack the courage to call a terrorist a terrorist regardless of the instrument of destruction they implement on our society?

ROdger Right

11-25-2008, 06:02 AM

See i think you scare people away from this concept because you come from the wrong angle. If u believe our government actually runs the country then you will probably never belive this or may who gives a fuck you dont matter fist of all. Bush is but a man involved with the 5% or 1%, doesnt really matrter. if you can comprehend that the people who support all the politicians in washington are also very wealthy buisnessmen and who look to exploit other countries as they have done successfully in Pakistan with the approval of 7 billion dollars as of today. Pakistan is but another tool in the shed because of the debt it just recieved, instead of arguing weather this is for good or nill ask yourself who rose the enrgy prices all over the country. who will recieve this 7 billion because it certainly wont go its people. try the lucky few and the corporations who will bring them infrastructure with this money. Now this is pakistan if the dictator stops cooperating then all they have to do is replace one man. From these unknown men none are elected and we all do what we have to pay the bills. They take costly risks but have a safety net called the us gov which supplies money if the risk does not work out as planned so we get to pay their bills also. and they have become so intwined in our lives that we cannot do away with them or we face the worlds problems:hunger,water,etc... Once you understand this then what is possible

Jesse Hemingway

11-26-2008, 02:54 AM

Dubai is well documented as one of the main finance centers for the alleged 9/11 plot see references below. That being said if Citibank is writing loans in Dubai and the funds are from the United States Taxpayers Under the direction of George W. Bush on or after November 23, 2008. What controls does Citibank employ to make sure United States taxpayers dollars from the bailout are not getting in the hands of terrorists it would be impossible for Citibank to control that. That would be in violation of international financing of terrorism laws and indirect violation of the United States Patriot Act.

Boom turns to gloom as crisis hits Dubai

Published on 25-11-2008

Source: Reuters

DUBAI - The seaside emirate of Dubai shifted into crisis mode this week as its breakneck building boom stalled, its lending bonanza evaporated and the government pondered wider steps to rescue banks.

Dubai -- self-styled bling capital of the Middle East, nightclub hotspot for the teetotalling Gulf and home to the world's tallest building and biggest mall -- has gone pear-shaped.

"It's gotten pretty ugly out there," analysts at Nomura Investment Banking wrote in a note this week, describing Dubai's property market as "a full-scale frenzy in which speculation went largely unchecked until it was very late."

The result may be a new business model for the emirate, one based less on debt and speculation.

Dubai's response is now being hammered out by a committee of business and government leaders charged with steering the emirate through the crisis and perhaps throwing its high-debt business model out the window.

Big developers have started firing staff and paring projects, banks like Emirates NBD ENBD.DU have blocked consumer credit to employees of companies at risk, and at least one major mortgage company has stopped lending altogether.

"Lenders blinded by rising oil prices and borrowers spellbound by easy returns have helped build a mountain of private sector debt in parts of the region that has generated an illusion of excess and abundance," Nomura said.

Now, investors fear that individuals and corporations alike will have trouble paying back Dubai's non-bank foreign currency debt estimated at just under $70 billion, according to estimates by ratings agency Fitch.

Shares in the region have lost around $1 trillion since the beginning of the year as investors fled. The UAE finance ministry said last month it would inject 70 billion dirhams ($19 billion) into the banking system, and is already looking at doing more to keep interbank liquidity flowing.

Many had hoped that the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would escape the crisis due to their massive current account surpluses from energy exports.

"Dubai is the most vulnerable, as it has little oil and has been booming on the oil surpluses from the GCC, Iran and Russia," said analysts at Citibank this week.

DUBAI INC.

Dubai Inc. -- the name applied to the emirate because it is run more as a business than a state -- now faces a major overhaul and has taken on teams of consultants to advise on how it might reshape itself in an era of weaker credit, rising competition, falling speculation and narrower profit margins.

With barely any oil to call its own within the loose UAE confederation, Dubai made its bid for fame by housing banks, retail, media, shipping and logistics enterprises and by billing itself as a safe haven in a volatile region for investors.

Post-crisis, banks and property firms are likely to merge, developers retrench, and the wild culture of speculation grow tame.

"The solution is a comprehensive effort to consolidate the myriad of companies that make up Dubai Inc.," Citibank said.

In addition, some suggest that the monetary regimes in the Gulf -- all, except Kuwait, which peg their currencies to the dollar -- may need to restructure as floating regimes instead, a move likely to spur decades-old goals of monetary union.

Few anticipate default given the widespread view that Dubai is too big to fail and the implicit support provided by its neighbor Abu Dhabi -- home to the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, ADIA.

"We believe Dubai will pull through with some help," Citibank said.

But with the cost of credit for the Gulf's top 22 financial firms rising from 30 basis points over LIBOR in early 2007 to around 200 now, many expect Dubai's spree to halt, plans to be swept from the drawing board, and existing projects to struggle.

The result, in the end, may be the sustainable growth model that Dubai has sought all along.

Dubai Speculators Quit as Lending Drought Bursts Desert Bubble
12/5/08

Source: Bloomberg

The classified ads in Dubai read like an obituary for a real-estate market that until a few months ago seemed immune from the global credit crisis.

A Turkish investor, who identified himself as Sebat, took out 10 bright yellow ads in the Nov. 25 edition of Gulf News, the United Arab Emirates’ biggest newspaper, with the headline: “DIRECT FROM OWNER DISTRESS SALE!!!” Sebat said he used to be able to buy four or five properties at a time and sell them the next day for a profit of as much as 5 percent.

“There is panic in the market,” said Sebat, 52, who wouldn’t give his full name because he’s juggling 60 properties.

The property bubble in the desert emirate, home to the world’s tallest building, most expensive hotel suite and largest manmade islands, is bursting as scarce credit and slumping oil prices have international investors scurrying to dump assets. That may shatter Dubai’s goal of creating a sustainable economy by building the Persian Gulf hub for finance and tourism, forcing it to depend on oil-rich neighbor Abu Dhabi for financing.

“Dubai is more precarious than it has ever been,” said Christopher Davidson, author of “Dubai: The Vulnerability of Success” (2008, Columbia University Press). “If the property industry collapses in Dubai, it will be finished. Dubai’s relative autonomy will come to an abrupt end.”

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-2521-0-13-13--.html

References:

Prior to 9/11 Dubai

Bin Laden's operatives still using freewheeling Dubai

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack.

The recent arrest of an alleged top al-Qaeda combat coach is the latest sign that suspected members of the terrorist organization are among those who take advantage of travel rules that allow easy entry. Citizens of neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia can come to Dubai without visas, which other nationalities can get at the country's ports of entry.

Once here, it's easy to blend in to what has become a cosmopolitan crowd.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm

"United Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARGDY3U-Ung

The Financing of the 9/11 Plot page 4 last line References Citibank

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf

Jesse Hemingway

11-29-2008, 11:41 AM

What everyone failed to pay attention to is that the midnight deal with on or after 11/23/08 with Citigroup directed by George W. Bush that transaction was a violation of Title III of the Patriot act. George W. Bush just authorized billions to a known and documented financial institution that had ties to the 9/11 terrorists. Many of you still believe the 9/11 fairytales told by George W. Bush and his administration. Do you really think that if 9/11 was the way George W. Bush said it happened Citigroup would still be in business WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!

Jesse Hemingway

12-01-2008, 11:31 AM

Let's see 17 months of decline world wide, decline decline decline and we got unmercifully screwed on the cost of oil for the most part of that time. Sorry, wake the fuck up, hello, there is a vast difference between speculation and manipulation if the world economies are shrinking demand parallels that movement so the basic foundation of saying speculation was driving up the cost of oil is total bull shit!!! How about manipulation camouflaged as speculation; oh I get it NOW and to even think 9/11 is what they said it was, now that is fucking crazy.

Read this very carefully the George W. Bush administration, all the leaders in the congress, and the media are deliberately engaging in economic warfare against all the people or slaves of the world. So let?s all get off the political high horses and understand both political parties have sold us all out. If we do not all act like Americans NOW and demand accountability then what choice will President Barack Obama have other then travel the path of least resistance and build his donor list.

When you see the Clintons list of donors you will understand why Bill Clinton ridicules any one requesting a new 9/11 investigation he was bought off.

Industry Shrinks From Asia to EU as Crisis Enters 17th Month
By Simon Kennedy

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Manufacturing shrank around the world as the financial crisis enters its 17th month, providing fresh evidence that the global economy is in recession and intensifying pressure on policy makers to respond.

Purchasing managers? indexes in Europe, Russia, China and South Africa today showed record contractions in production as the persistent lack of credit hammers demand from companies and consumers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiAyjaZkiMy4&refer=home

Jesse Hemingway

12-03-2008, 04:11 AM

How to catch Osama Bin Laden this is so easy but seeing that we live in this corrupt society nothing will ever happen.

1. Get every registration of every Ocean going yacht owned by the Saudi Royal family members and Sunni businessmen.
2. Take that demographic figure and the number Ocean going yachts then take their underway logs determine the average amount of time they are underway and locations create a mean average.
3. Once you have your mean average set, segregate the Ocean going yachts into two groups’ top 50% and bottom.
4. Take the bottom 50% and develop a statistical average curve to determine where most Ocean going yachts travel time are and distance and locations.
5. The fun part now do step four with the top 50%
6. Correlate the statistical average curve information from the majority of two groups.
7. Take the deviation of the upper 20% from the top 50% group of Ocean going yachts determine where and why that group goes farther then the rest. Take the ships logs verify the ports visited and supplies taking on.
8. I personally think this is where they have been hiding Osama Bin Laden if my hunch is correct it would be a relatively simple process verify with the proper authority.

Jesse Hemingway

12-06-2008, 03:51 PM

The sociopath & chief, enabling media, and pant load politicians

The parade of national shame

By: Jesse Hemingway

Remember Impeachment is off table!!! By who’s authority?

The foundational question is could the George W. Bush criminal enterprise have exponentially spawned without the complicity of the national media, history has empirically proven that it is a key critical component in the mass population manipulation process. One person selected George W. Bush as President of the United States of America in 2000 the media failed miserable to challenge that person integrity, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and his uncertain past. It is well known fact in criminal prosecutions that a notorious key ingredient to define a criminal enterprise by its existence is the use of blackmail and coercion by Quid pro quo to protect a person alleged status in life such as United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Just this manifestation at face value of this questionable perception of a created reality is a self indictment; that requires a through follow up investigation into George W. Bush criminal enterprise below is a quote from that criminal enterprise circa 2002.

''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html

The following reference below “The Battle for the Control of the Press” emphases that an elaborate orchestrated relationship existed between the media and its willing participation in the George W, Bush criminal enterprise.

References:

Transcript: Charlie Gibson Interviews President Bush

'I Made Tough Calls,' 'I Did Not Compromise My Principles,' President Says

Dec. 1, 2008

The following is an excerpted transcript of Charlie Gibson's interview with President George Bush and First Lady Laura Bush at Camp David, on their reflections over the past eight years, the current state of the country and their greatest disappointments and accomplishments, for "World News."

Link: http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/Story?id=6356046&page=1

Page 5

GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?

BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq
Paul R. Pillar

From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006

Link: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p0/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

Page 3

“That is what happened when the Bush administration repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war. The Bush team approached the community again and again and pushed it to look harder at the supposed Saddam-al Qaeda relationship -- calling on analysts not only to turn over additional Iraqi rocks, but also to turn over ones already examined and to scratch the dirt to see if there might be something there after all. The result was an intelligence output that -- because the question being investigated was never put in context -- obscured rather than enhanced understanding of al Qaeda's actual sources of strength and support.

This process represented a radical departure from the textbook model of the relationship between intelligence and policy, in which an intelligence service responds to policymaker interest in certain subjects (such as "security threats from Iraq" or "al Qaeda's supporters") and explores them in whatever direction the evidence leads. The process did not involve intelligence work designed to find dangers not yet discovered or to inform decisions not yet made. Instead, it involved research to find evidence in support of a specific line of argument -- that Saddam was cooperating with al Qaeda -- which in turn was being used to justify a specific policy decision.”

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL

ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ

Some Council Members Press for More Time, Strengthened

Inspections; Others Insist That Iraq Has Not Made Strategic Decision to Comply

Link: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

March 7/2003

MOHAMMED ALDOURI (Iraq) said that the possibilities of launching a war of aggression against Iraq had become imminent, despite what the Council would decide and despite the official and public international stance, which strongly rejected aggression and war and demanded a peaceful solution. The French, German, Russian and Chinese positions clearly indicated there was no need for a second resolution. They had demanded the continuation of the work of the inspectors and giving them enough time to complete their task peacefully. The position taken at the most recent Arab summit unanimously confirmed the rejection of attacking Iraq because that constituted a threat to Arab national security and to the need to resolve the Iraqi crisis peacefully.

He said the Non-Aligned Movement, at its latest summit, also condemned military action and the threat of the use of military action, and considered that a flagrant violation of the principle of non-interference. The heads of State and representatives of 57 Islamic countries, recently meeting in Al-Duha, declared their absolute rejection of any aggression against Iraq and considered that a

threat to the security of all Islamic States. He also expressed his appreciation for the efforts being made by all churches towards peace and by the Pope in insisting on peace and rejecting war. On behalf of the Iraqi people, he saluted all the peoples of the world who had taken to the streets in the millions expressing their attachment to peace and rejection of war.

On the other hand, he said, the United States and British Governments continued to attempt to “trump up” facts and evidence, pointing to Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, but they had fallen short in convincing the international community. The inspectors had proved that there were no such weapons and that the allegations were false. Iraq had taken the strategic decision to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction in 1991. The UNSCOM had worked for eight years, during which Iraq handed over many of those banned weapons. That was in addition to the weapons it had destroyed unilaterally in the summer of 1991, which had included all banned biological materials. That was the central fact of the matter.

Since then, nothing had been unearthed to contradict that fact, he stressed. Any proscribed weapons had been declared or unilaterally destroyed. It was for the accusers to prove otherwise, if they had any evidence. Regarding Iraq’s VX programme, Iraq had no VX weapons agents to declare. It had never produced stable VX and never “weaponized” it. No one had any evidence, whatsoever, to the contrary. Mr. Powell should not jump to such hasty conclusions, as he had about aluminium tubes and the claims about importing uranium. The inspection chiefs’ reports had asserted otherwise. And, when asked if Iraq represented a threat now, Dr. Blix said everyone agreed that Iraq had very limited military capacities, in comparison to 1991, and that the country was being monitored and very closely guarded by the inspectors. Regarding interviews, Dr. Blix said that those were now yielding results.

He said the statements made today by the United States and the United Kingdom showed “a state of confusion” because they were unable to provide any evidence proving the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They had also been unable to mask their own private agenda in the region and the world. There were allegations that Iraq was destroying the missiles, on the one hand, and manufacturing them, on the other. Then came talk about a regime change. All of that talk was an attempt to mask the issues and the real agenda, the objective of which was the complete takeover of Iraq’s oil, domination of the entire Arab region, both politically and economically, and the remapping of the Middle East region.

When Iraq had accepted the Council’s resolutions, it had sought justice from that esteemed body, but the tabling of the latest draft and its amendment did not relate to disarmament. The aim was to “drag the Council” into detrimental consequences, not only for Iraq, but for the United Nations’ credibility, as well. He was grateful to all those opposing the draft. Iraq would not waiver in its continuing, proactive and rapid cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA. The Council should shoulder its responsibilities, especially today’s, by thwarting aggression against his country. Let it not allow a new crime to be committed in its name, the impact of which would far surpass any crimes of the past century. War against Iraq would not unearth any weapons of mass destruction, but it would wreak destruction. All those who abetted in the commission of that crime, without a direct interest, would be sorry indeed, he warned.

http://www.undemocracy.com/securitycouncil/meeting_4714

References: William Rehnquist questionable past

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html

The Rehnquist Choice: The Untold Story of the Nixon Appointment That Redefined the Supreme Court
by John W Dean

http://www.powells.com/biblio?show=TRADE%20PAPER:USED:9780743233200:3.63# synopses_and_reviews

Rehnquist FBI File Sheds New Light on Drug Dependence, Confirmation Battles
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
January 4, 2007

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1167818524831

William Rehnquist testifies during his 1986 hearings to become chief justice of the Supreme Court.

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist's Senate confirmation battles in 1971 and 1986 were more intense and political than previously known, according to a newly released FBI file that also offers dramatic new details about Rehnquist's 1981 hospitalization and dependence on a painkiller

Rehnquist's Drug Habit the man in full.
By Jack Shafer Posted Friday, Jan. 5, 2007, at 11:52 AM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2156978/

The Battle for the Control of the Press

http://www.yuricareport.com/Media/BattleForControlOfThePress.html

Jesse Hemingway

12-12-2008, 11:12 AM

Iran Captures CIA Terrorists
Published on 12-11-2008

By Kurt Nimmo

The Tehran Times reports via Press TV:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-2595-0-20-20--.html

Iran’s security forces say they have arrested some elements of a terrorist group in eastern Iran who had a hand in the execution of 15 police officers.

“”The Iranian intelligence and police forces have arrested some terrorists who were behind the killings of 15 Iranian police members,”" Kazem Jalali, a senior lawmaker told reporters on Monday.

The captured terrorists are to be brought to the justice in near future and their open hearing will be broadcast for the Iranian nation, he added.

Officials from Iran’s foreign and intelligence ministries met with senior Pakistani police authorities on Monday to discuss the ways to return to Iran the bodies of the killed officers.

According to the information and documents obtained by Pakistani government, some elements inside Pakistan are supporting Jundullah group, the Iranian MP noted.

Also, the Arabic Nahrainnet website cited informed sources in Pakistan’s Peshawar on Monday who claimed that Saudi Arabian intelligence agencies have significantly increased their support for the terrorist group.

Jundullah is a CIA spawned terror group and its operational base is located in Afghanistan. It conducts raids into the southeastern Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchestan. According to Brigadier General Mohammad, Jundullah receives “support from British and US forces in neighboring Afghanistan for its campaign of violence in Sistan-Baluchestan,” David Eshel wrote in the March 2007 Defense Update.

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0307/analysis/analysis-070307.htm

Jesse Hemingway

12-14-2008, 06:04 PM

Iran says has proof U.S., UK back police killer group
Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:51pm EST

13 Dec 2008 TEHRAN
(Reuters) - Iran has documents to prove the United States and Britain, the Islamic Republic's two Western arch foes, back a group that killed 16 abducted Iranian police officers, state radio reported on Saturday.

Shi'ite-dominated Iran said this month the Sunni group Jundollah (God's Soldiers) had killed 16 police hostages who were abducted from a checkpoint in the southeastern Sistan- Baluchestan province in June.

Tehran, which often accuses Britain and the United States of trying to destabilize the Islamic Republic, has said Jundollah's head, Abdolmalek Rigi, is part of the Sunni Islamist al Qaeda network.

"There are documents that show that Britain and America are supporting Rigi's terrorist group with arms and information," the radio quoted Ebrahim Raisi, first deputy to Iran's judiciary chief, as saying.

"The Iranian nation will avenge the blood of the border post soldiers powerfully," it added, without providing further details on the documents.

Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda is blamed for numerous attacks on the United States, including the September 2001 assaults on New York and Washington that killed some 3,000 people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BC15X20081213

Jesse Hemingway

12-26-2008, 12:34 AM

Good video; additional contradictions to the United States Government official 9/11 story. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

http://www.thepentacon.com/PentagonFlyover.htm

Scumbag

12-27-2008, 11:35 AM

Good video; additional contradictions to the United States Government official 9/11 story. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

http://www.thepentacon.com/PentagonFlyover.htm
God, you're a sucker!

Jesse Hemingway

01-04-2009, 03:07 PM

God, you're a sucker!

Thanks to www.historycommons.org, DHS, and simuvac. This is dedicated to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17949

Jon Gold
9/25/2008

Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you're not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren't being given is "sinister" in nature. As Ray McGovern said, "for people to dismiss these questioners as "conspiratorial advocates", or "conspiratorial theorists"... that's completely out of line because the... The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT." When you think about everything this Administration has done in almost 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something "sinister" is not crazy. In fact, it's the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After seven plus years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.

That being said, we have not proven it beyond the shadow of doubt. We do not have documentation that shows they planned it. We do not have a signed confession from someone. We have pieces of the puzzle, and to most of us that have been doing this a long time, those pieces point to more than just Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 19 hijackers. If we could somehow download all of our knowledge to every person on the planet, this fight would be over tomorrow. However, we can't do that. I wish we could. I wish the media would DO THEIR JOB. But, they're not. Therefore, we have to be smart with how we approach people. This is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

As I have often said, we don't need to come up with a narrative (theory) because our facts speak for themselves. I am going to do my very best to prove my point. A lot of these facts are from mainstream news outlets. Yes, they do report the news, but they DO NOT put the pieces together, they DO NOT ask the tough questions over and over again until they get an answer, they DO NOT give these facts the atte ntion they should, reminiscent of the attention that Britney Spears, Scott Peterson, The Aruba Murders, and The Swift Boat Veterans got, and they DO NOT portray us in any other light except as "Conspiracy Theorists."

Fact #1
The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called "The Project For A New American Century." This group produced a document entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that said the "process of transformation" they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a "catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." That document was written in September 2000. This document even cited that "advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." A lot of the same people were part of a group that wrote a report entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" that advocated an aggressive Israeli policy in the Middle East.

Fact #2
The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq. This is so heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked the President about it. He denied it of course, and used 9/11 as the justification for what he and his administration have done.

Fact #3
Dick Cheney was the CEO for a company called Halliburton. During his tenure there, he gave a speech at the Institute of Petroleum that said, "while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow." On 10/11/2005, it was reported that the shares that Dick Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton, rose 3281% in one year.

Fact #4
In early 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of The National Energy Policy Development Group, or "Energy Task Force" for short. He prepared for this during the transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations. The task force met with what appears to be every oil executive in existence, even though they denied it before Congress. It was eventually discovered that one of the topics of discussion during these task force meetings was Iraq's oil fields. Five months before 9/11. The Vice President's office fought long and hard to make sure the information from those meetings never saw the light of day. They even took the fight to the Supreme Court. Many were suspicious of the hunting trip that Antonin Scalia, and Dick Cheney went on prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case. Scalia was proud of the fact that he didn't recuse himself from the hearings. Ultimately, they sent the fight to an appeals court, and it was decided that Cheney's Task Force documents may remain secret.

Fact #5
In the months leading up to 9/11, there was an unprecedented amount of warnings that "Al-Qaeda" was about to conduct an attack. So many that CIA Director George Tenet was said to be running around with his "hair on fire," and so many that a lot were not taken seriously "because of "warning fatigue" arising from too many terror warnings." One of those warnings came in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." that was initially hidden by the White House. Another came on July 10th, 2001 that spoke of an "imminent threat," that was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report, and then lied about after it became public knowledge. Condi even had the audacity to ask "does anybody really believe that somebody would have walked into my office and said, oh, by the way, there's a chance of a major attack against the United States and I would have said, well, I'm really not interested in that information?" Cheney said that his "Democratic friends in Congress... need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11."

Fact #6
There are indications that military action in Afghanistan was planned before 9/11. On 3/7/2001, the New York Times reports that Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley chairs an informal meeting to discuss Al-Qaeda. The approach is "two-pronged and included a crisis warning effort to deal with immediate threats and longer-range planning by senior officials to put into place a comprehensive strategy to eradicate al-Qaeda." On 3/15/2001, Jane's Intelligence Review reports that the U.S. is working with India, Iran, and Russia "in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime." General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command said that "the details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001." On 6/26/2001, it is reported that "India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime." In late Summer 2001, the Guardian will report that "reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist[s] on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north." In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that "[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world." The President had plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk on 9/9/2001. They "outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf." On 7/21/2001, three former American officials, Tom Simons, Karl Inderfurth, and Lee Coldren met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, "I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action." Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is allegedly told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to "take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."

Fact #7
On the day of 9/11, a number of key personnel were "scattered" across the country, and the world. With few exceptions, including Dick Cheney. The President of the United States, at a time when America was "under attack" from kamikaze hijackers in commercial airliners, in a highly publicized location, 5 miles away from an international airport, in a classroom full of children, was not whisked away by the Secret Service. His conduct on the morning of 9/11 changed on the first anniversary.

Fact #8
On the morning of 9/11, there were several military exercises taking place, some of which allegedly mirrored the events taking place that day. A lot of different people didn't know whether or not the hijackings were "real-world or exercise." According to Richard Clarke, on the morning of 9/11 at around 9:28am, he says to Gen. Richard Myers during a video teleconference “I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?” Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies it's, “NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, DICK (emphasis mine). WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF VIGILANT WARRIOR, A NORAD EXERCISE (emphasis mine), but… Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert.” The 9/11 Report only mentioned one of these exercises, Vigilant Guardian, and in a footnote in the back of the book. On 2/25/2005, then Rep. Cynthia McKinney asked (realplayer required) Donald Rumsfeld about the exercises that were taking place on 9/11, but did not get an answer on that day. On 3/10/2005, Rep. McKinney asked Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. Richard Myers about the exercises again. The first question asked by Rep. McKinney was, "whether or not the activities of the 4 wargames going on on Sept. 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks." Gen. Myers responded with, "the answer to the question is, no, did not impair our response. In fact, Gen. Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission... I believe...I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond." Then Rep. McKinney asked, "who was in charge of managing those wargames?," and was cut off by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Gen. Myers never gave a name, but he did say, "North American Aerospace Defense Command was responsible." She was promised an answer in writing and as far as I know, never received it.

Fact #9
From the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), Dick Cheney allegedly monitored Flight 77 from 50 miles outside of Washington D.C. This, according to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. According to Mineta, "during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say 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?" The 9/11 Report states that Cheney didn't arrive in the PEOC until 9:58. No video conferences from within the PEOC have been made available. No personnel records for who was in the PEOC have been made available. The "young man" Norman Mineta mentioned has never been named, and was never brought before the 9/11 Commission to testify.

Fact #10
On the day of 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld started planning the Iraq War. DoD Staffer Stephen Cambone took down several notes with regards to what Rumsfeld was saying. "Best info fast... judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]" [...] "Go massive... Sweep it all up. Things related and not." [...] "Hard to get a good case."

Fact #11
Between 9:30pm and 10:00pm on 9/11/2001, Bush says, "this is a great opportunity. We have to think of this as an opportunity." He does so again during his State Of The Union speech on 1/29/2002. Karl Rove said, "sometimes history sends you things and 9/11 came our way."

Fact #12
In the days and months following the attacks, several people within the administration and elsewhere tried to tie Iraq to 9/11. General Wesley Clark said, "there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11." According to George Tenet, shortly after 9/11, Richard Perle said, "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility." Former CIA Director James Woolsey said, "[I]ntelligence and law enforcement officials investigating the case would do well to at least consider another possibility: that the attacks-whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others-were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein," he writes. "As yet, there is no evidence of explicit state sponsorship of the September 11 attacks. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Dick Cheney claimed the bogus Atta-Iraqi spy meeting had been, "pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." Since that time, they have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and even Hillary did it.

Fact #13
The heads of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Sen. Porter Goss, and Sen. Bob Graham, along with Sen. John Kyl, met with an alleged financier of the attacks on the day of 9/11.

Fact #14
The Joint Congressional Inquiry, which both Bush and Cheney tried to "limit the scope" of, released a report with 28 redacted pages. Apparently, those 28 pages talk about "possible Saudi Arabian financial links." In 2004, Sen. Bob Graham says that the Bush White House is covering up Saudi Arabia's possible connection to the two hijackers that lived in San Diego. He said the information about them, "present[s] a compelling case that there was Saudi assistance." He also says that the Bush Administration directed the FBI "to restrain and obfuscate" any investigations into the connection. The landlord of the two hijackers was Abdussatar Shaikh, an FBI asset handled by agent Steven Butler. The FBI originally tried to prevent Butler from testifying before the Congressional Inquiry, but when he finally did, he said that he may have been able to uncover the 9/11 plot if the CIA shared their information on the two hijackers. He said, "it would have made a huge difference." [...] "We would have immediately opened... investigations. We would have given them the full court press. We would... have done everything-physical surveillance, technical surveillance, and other assets."

Fact #15
The Bush Administration was the families' "biggest adversary" when it came to the creation of a so-called Independent 9/11 Commission. The families had to fight "tooth and nail," and lobby to get an investigation because the Bush Administration clearly did not want one. Dick Cheney and George Bush refused to testify under oath before select individuals of the 9/11 Commission even though the families wanted them to. They testified together, not in public, and no recordings were allowed. The families requested the transcripts of their meeting, but were denied. They made it difficult for the commission to get funding. They tried to make Henry Kissinger the Chairman of the commission, but he resigned after the families started asking too many questions. Alberto Gonzales "stonewalled" the 9/11 Commission's access to the White House. They appointed Thomas Kean as Chairman, someone "who will be easily controlled by the administration," and Lee Hamilton, a long time friend of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to be the co-chair. Hamilton participated in two inquiries that resulted in cover-ups. The Iran/Contra Affair inquiry, and the October Surprise inquiry.

Fact #16
Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Paul Sperry explained, "though he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses... In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation." In 1995, Zelikow wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice called, "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft." While at Harvard, "he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." Between 1997 and 1998, Zelikow helped to write a report that said "Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously... it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism." They predict the consequences of such an event: "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great 'success' or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a 'before' and 'after.'" In 1997, Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a report about John F. Kennedy that is "riddled" with errors. Zelikow wrote the pre-emptive war strategy for the Bush Administration. Zelikow said that the "real threat" with regards to Iraq's WMD was to Israel. Zelikow tried to prevent the 9/11 Commission staffers from talking to the Commissioners. Zelikow tried to insert a false connection between Iraq and 9/11 into the 9/11 Report, but the families, and the staffers fought against it. It has been alleged that he may have taken direction from Karl Rove who, according to Philip Shenon, was concerned about the 9/11 Commission because "in the wrong hands... [it] could cost President Bush a second term." The allegation regarding Rove drove the September Eleventh Advocates (formerly known as "The Jersey Girls") to call for an entirely new investigation. Only Rawstory.com covered that story. In early 2003, Philip Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a complete outline of the final 9/11 Report. Zelikow, Kean, and Hamilton decided to keep this outline a secret from the commission staffers. When "it was later disclosed that Zelikow had prepared a detailed outline of the commission's final report at the very start of the investigation, many of the staff's investigators were alarmed." He rewrote the 9/11 Report to be more favorable of Condoleezza Rice. During the time of the 9/11 Commission, the families called for the resignation of Philip Zelikow, but were denied that request. After the 9/11 Commission was finished, Philip Zelikow was given a job with Condoleezza Rice at the State Department.

Fact #17
NORAD gave three different timelines with regards to their response on the day of 9/11. Sen. Mark Dayton slammed the 9/11 Commissioners for what the 9/11 Report said about NORAD. On 6/17/2004, 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick will question Gen. Myers about NORAD's mission. "In my experience, the military is very clear about its charters, and who is supposed to do what. So if you go back and you look at the foundational documents for NORAD, they do not say defend us only against a threat coming in from across the ocean, or across our borders. It has two missions, and one of them is control of the airspace above the domestic United States, and aerospace control is defined as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. To me that air sovereignty concept means that you have a role which, if you were postured only externally you defined out of the job." [...] "I would like to know, as the second question, is it your job, and if not whose job is it, to make current assessments of a threat, and decide whether you are positioned correctly to carry out a mission, which at least on paper NORAD had." At the end of this exchange, Gen. Myers asks, "did I answer both questions?" Jamie Gorelick responds, "yes, and no, and my time has expired." According to information collected by Dean Jackson, NORAD's mission at the time, coincided with Jamie Gorelick's understanding of it. On 8/2/2006, the Washington Post reported that "the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public" and that "the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation." Later, it was reported that NORAD's mistakes were due to "inadequate forensic capabilities" and "poor record-keeping." William P. Goehring, a spokesman for the Inspector General's office, said that "the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation." To my knowledge, that report has not been released as of this date. Here are some excerpts from Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton's book, "Without Precedent." "There were also discrepancies between things NORAD was telling us about their performance on the morning of September 11—things that the agency had stated publicly after 9/11—and the story told by the limited tapes and documents the commission had received…. These were puzzling and disturbing developments, and they account in part for some of the more bizarre and inaccurate conspiracy theories about 9/11." [...] "Farmer believed that NORAD was delivering incomplete records with the knowledge that the commission had a fixed end date that could be waited out." [...] "Throughout the course of our inquiry, the topic that invited the most skepticism—and thus the most conspiracy theorizing—was the performance of the FAA and NORAD on the day of September 11, 2001." [...] "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." On 9/17/2001, NORAD gives a briefing to the White House. 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey will say "it feels like something happened in that briefing that produced almost a necessity to deliver a story that's different than what actually happened on that day."

Fact #18
Different pieces of evidence have been destroyed or is being withheld from the public. Kevin Delaney, the quality assurance manager for the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, destroyed a tape recorded by six Air Traffic Controllers on the morning of 9/11 "by breaking up the plastic housing and cutting the tape into small fragments, depositing the remnants in trash cans throughout the Center. 2.5 terabytes of information regarding Able Danger was destroyed in April/May 2000. The CIA destroyed interrogation tapes. In 2003, a book was written by Gail Swanson entitled, "Behind-the-Scenes: Ground Zero" that is a "collection of personal accounts" from people that were at Ground Zero on that day. In that book, Firefighter Nicholas DeMasi says "at one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV. When we got into the ATV to take off, the agent accidentally pushed me forward. The ATV was already in reverse, and my foot went down on the gas pedal. We went down the stairs in reverse. Fortunately, everything was okay. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three." The 9/11 Commission says those black boxes were not found. Most of the steel from the WTC was removed, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Fire Engineering magazine wrote, "We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence."

Fact #19
Several Whistleblowers have come forward over the years with information pertinent to the 9/11 attacks. Most were ignored or censored by the 9/11 Commission. Some of these people are John M. Cole (Senior Counterintelligence Operations Manager-FBI), Bogdan Dzakovic (Former Red Team Leader-FAA), Sibel Edmonds (Language Specialist-FBI), Behrooz Sarshar (Language Specialist-FBI), Melvin A. Goodman (Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager-CIA), Gilbert Graham (Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence-FBI), Coleen Rowley (Retired Division Counsel- FBI), John Vincent (Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Robert Wright (Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FB), Mark Burton (Senior Analyst- NSA), Mike German (Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and Scott Philpott. 9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza said "Sibel came to, actually, the four widows, and asked us if she could get a hearing with the Commission because nobody of the Commission was responding to her requests to testify. And part of the problem with testifying, um... as someone who's working for one of the agencies, is that, they have to be careful with state secrets, what they reveal. And, in order to be a whistle-blower, and not be retaliated against, most whistle-blowers need to be subpoenaed, cause then their co-workers, and those who might retaliate against them, know that under penalty of, ya know, law, they could be... um... ya know, accused of being traitors and what not, and put in jail, or executed. So, most whistle-blowers were... did not come forward on the basis of what happened to Sibel Edmonds. Um, Sibel brought us many whistle-blowers, and I submitted them personally to Governor Kean, who was the Chairman of the Commission. And I said, "these people are not being subpoenaed. They will not come before the Commission voluntarily unless they are subpoenaed." And, he promised me... to my face that "every whistle-blower would be... indeed heard." And, most were not heard. Sibel was only heard because we dragged her in and surprised the Commission on one of the days we were meeting with them... that we had her with us. Um, we met other whistle-blowers on the side of the road in Maryland, ya know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us by the way (laughs)... um, but, they had information... and basically, the Government knew... ya know, other than the exact moment... they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come. (pauses) And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission. And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, "What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation." And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication." Within the last year, Sibel Edmonds agreed to break the gag order that was placed on her, and tell her entire story to the media. The only paper to take the challenge was the Sunday Times. The media in this country did not give her the time of day with one exception that I know of, and it wasn't prominently displayed. Sibel's story mentions the same alleged financier of the 9/11 attacks that Sen. Porter Goss, Sen. Graham, and Sen. Kyl met with on the morning of 9/11.

Fact #20
Apparently, Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the Pakistani ISI, someone who met with U.S. elected and appointed officials in the weeks before 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, ordered possible MI6 Agent Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta. The 9/11 Families' submitted a question to the 9/11 Commission about this incident. Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, John S. Pistole stated that their investigation "has traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan, where high-ranking and well-known al-Qaeda operatives played a major role in moving the money forward, eventually into the hands of the hijackers located in the US." In January 2002, during a visit to India, FBI Director Robert Mueller was told about Saeed Sheikh's involvement in the 9/11 attacks by Indian Investigators. Apparently, "on the eve of the publication of its report, the 9/11 Commission was given a stunning document from Pakistan, claiming that Pakistani intelligence officers knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks." On 3/3/2006, the Friday Times reported that "Pakistan gave tens of thousands of dollars through its lobbyists in the United States to members of the 9/11 inquiry commission to ‘convince’ them to drop some anti-Pakistan findings in the report." This according to FO Official Sadiq. According to the Pakistan paper Daily Times, this story about bribery "triggered" U.S. media interest. I don't remember seeing any mention of this story at all. If you know of an American media outlet that investigated this story, and reported on the results of that investigation, please let me know. On 4/10/2006, Pakistan officially denied the allegations of bribery. “Pakistan has never indulged in the illegal activity of bribing or buying influence anywhere in the world,” said a statement issued by the FO spokesperson here on Sunday. On 10/1/2001, Lt. Gen. Ahmed and Saeed Sheikh may have been involved in another "terrorist attack" together. Recently, it was reported that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh has been running a terrorist network from prison, and was planning to assassinate President Musharraf. Former ISI Chief Hamid Gul recently defended Lt. Gen. Ahmed regarding the allegations of the wire transfer. On 3/15/2002, Condoleeza Rice is asked a question about Lt. Gen. Ahmed. "Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that ISI Chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area? While he was here meeting with you or anybody in the administration?" Her response was, "I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me." The transcript of this has "ISI Chief" replaced with "--."

Fact #21
On the morning of 9/11, shortly after the first impact, a homemaker by the name of Maria will get a phone call from her neighbor. "She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye." She notices a group of people sitting on top of a white van. She says, "they seemed to be taking a movie."She calls the police. At 3:31pm on 9/11, the FBI issues a BOLO (be on the lookout) that says, "White, 2000 Chevrolet van...with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center.... Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals." At 3:56pm on 9/11, these individuals are arrested. On 9/14/2001, the owner of Urban Moving Systems flees to Israel. Because of great pressure in late October 2001, the arrested men, allegedly Israeli spies, are released in November 2001. One of the men claims "our purpose was to document the event."

Fact #22
No one has been held accountable, and instead, people that don't deserve it, have been promoted.

Fact #23
On 9/11/2006, 9/11 Family members Donna Marsh O'Connor, Michele Little, and Christina Kminek, along with Kyle Hence (Executive Producer of 9/11: Press For Truth), and Paul Thompson (www.historycommons.org, author of "The Terror Timeline"), called for a new investigation (RealPlayer required) at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. I believe this is the only news outlet to cover it. Over the years, different family members like Bob McIlvaine, Lorie Van Auken, Daniel Wallace (RIP), Barry Zelman, Manny Badillo, and Patrick Welsh have spoken out for the truth. The September Eleventh Advocates have released letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter trying to get some truth. The media has been silent.

Fact #24
The United States Government has not fully cooperated with international investigations into 9/11. With regards to Abdelghani Mzoudi, the United States "would not allow Mzoudi’s defense to cross-examine bin al-Shibh," and as a result he was acquitted. During an appeal, "Kay Nelm, Germany’s top federal prosecutor, again appeals to the US State Department to release interrogation records of bin al-Shibh to the court. However, the US still refuses to release the evidence, and a list of questions the court gives to the US for bin al-Shibh to answer are never answered." With regards to Mounir El-Motassadeq, his conviction having to do with the 9/11 attacks was overturned after finding that "German and US authorities withheld evidence." He was later convicted for his "Al-Qaeda" membership, but not for 9/11.

Fact #25
As I mentioned in the introduction, the Mainstream Media has not covered the questions concerning the 9/11 attacks as they should, and for the most part, with the exception of small town news, have attacked those that do. According to James Goodale, the founders of the United States "enacted the First Amendment to distinguish their new government from that of England, which had long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown." On 10/31/2005, Reporters Without Borders reported that the United States ranked 44th in the world for Freedom Of The Press "mainly because of the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and legal moves undermining the privacy of journalistic sources." At the recent RNC, several journalists, including Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow were arrested. Over the years, the Mainstream Media has essentially used George Bush's policy of never tolerating "outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th - malicious lies that attempt to shift blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." At first, and still, they have referred to anyone that questions the events of 9/11 as "Conspiracy Theorists." They have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. The Mainstream Media has also repeatedly focused on what is considered the "fringe" of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and has ignored the more credible researchers. Several celebrities have spoken out for 9/11 Truth. Each time one has done so, almost in unison, the Mainstream Media has attacked them. They have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again. They have portrayed those who question the official account as "unpatriotic," and also as "terrorist sympathizers." As pointed out in Fact #23, the media has also ignored the 9/11 Family Members who question the official account, but they have also given a lot of attention to people like Ann Coulter that have attacked some of those family members again, and again, and again. The September Eleventh Advocates responded to Coulter's remarks. The media has heavily promoted movies like "Path To 9/11" which are factually incorrect, and ignored movies liked "9/11: Press For Truth," which calls into question the entire 9/11 Report, and is endorsed by the family members that fought for it. The MSM have also repeatedly said that if you question the official account of 9/11, you are dishonoring the family members.

Fact #26
The 9/11 Commission was mandated to give a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future." The 9/11 Commission had the power of subpoena, but rarely used it. Instead, they used what were called "document requests" which could be, and were ignored. As mentioned in Fact #19, several whistleblowers were brought forward, but were either censored or ignored by the 9/11 Commission. Early on, the 9/11 Commission didn't hold people under oath. At one point, an advertising campaign was started that asked for people to be held under oath. The following are some quotes from 9/11 Commissioners Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton from their book "Without Precedent." "The two sides decided to split the difference, allowing eighteen months for the inquiry—a period of time that proved insufficient" [....] "The White House also suggested some candidates for executive director for our staff. The importance of this position cannot be overstated" [...] "…we seriously only considered one candidate: Philip Zelikow…. Zelikow was a controversial choice. In the 1990s, as an academic, he had co-authored, with Condoleezza Rice, a book about German unification, and he later assisted Stephen Hadley in running the National Security Council transition for the incoming Bush administration in 2000-2001" [...] "After Philip Zelikow came on board as executive director, he began recruiting and interviewing candidates…. Zelikow was selected with little consultation with the rest of the committee, but several commissioners had concerns about the kind of inquiry he would lead" [...] "We soon encountered problems, both in obtaining information and with the laborious conditions placed on our access to some information" [...] "We decided against an aggressive use of subpoenas for several reasons…. Furthermore, we knew that many of the most important documents we sought were potentially the subject of an executive privilege claim—meaning that the president might not be legally compelled to share that material with another branch of government, even with a subpoena" [...] "We were supposed to be independent, not necessarily confrontational. We were investigating a national catastrophe, not a White House transgression; this was 9/11, not Watergate" [...] "Senior officials from the FAA and NORAD—Jane Garvey and Craig McKinley—made statements about the timeline of 9/11 that were later proven to be inaccurate" [...] "Many interviews were recorded, though we were not permitted to record those conducted with current officials from the Executive Office of the President" [...] "We were set up to fail." The 9/11 Family Steering Committee was made up of 12 family members, including the "Jersey Girls." They monitored the commission, they worked with the staffers of the commission, and they provided 100's of well researched questions for the commission to answer. According to 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean, "They monitor us, they follow our progress, they've supplied us with some of the best questions we've asked. I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them." The 9/11 Commission only answered 30% of the families questions.

Fact #27
The level of fear that resulted from the attacks of 9/11 was nourished and maintained, and still is to this day. Reich Marshal Hermann Goering once said "of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." On 6/23/2007, Glenn Greenwald wrote about how insurgents in Iraq were being referred to as "Al-Qaeda" more frequently. He states, "what makes this practice all the more disturbing is how quickly and obediently the media has adopted the change in terms consciously issued by the Bush administration and their military officials responsible for presenting the Bush view of the war to the press." Fox News once suggested "Al-Qaeda" was responsible for starting California Wildfires. Keith Olbermann ran two stories that I know of regarding the political usage of "terror threats." The New York Times recently ran a massive story on how military analysts with "ties to military contractors" were being used by the Pentagon to "shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." They "have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated."

Fact #28
The 9/11 Report was, and is promoted as a triumph. The Washington Post reported that it is "a useful analysis of the changes that have taken place since, as well as the changes that have not taken place, " and calling the commission's unanimity and comprehensiveness "impressive." WaPo also reported that "the final report is a document of historic sweep and almost unprecedented detail, offering the sort of examination of a highly classified subject that customarily would not be possible for decades after the fact. From the findings of spy agencies to the tactics of fighter pilots, from the conversations of heads of state to the verbatim texts of secret presidential briefings, this is the government laid bare." The New York Times reported that it was "uncommonly lucid, even riveting," and is an "improbable literary triumph." Time Magazine said the report was "meticulous in its reconstruction of the attacks and unflinching in its conclusions about why the government failed to stop them." The 9/11 Commission's report was nominated by the National Book Foundation in 2004 for best in Non-fiction. Former Representative Katherine Harris referred to the 9/11 Report as "one of the most important publications of our age." Senator Hillary Clinton said the 9/11 Commission's report was "a great testimony to the their willingness to search hard for the truth, to get at the facts." Senator Charles Schumer said the 9/11 Commission did an "incredible job." In 2004, Bush's Presidential Campaign said "the Commission's report makes the case for the policies that U.S. President Bush has been pursuing in the War on Terror and eliminates any doubt that the best defense against the threat of global terror is a strong offense." Bush said, "I agree with their conclusion that the terrorists were able to exploit deep institutional failings in our nation's defenses that developed over more than a decade." A different kind of praise for the 9/11 Report has come in the form of requests for "9/11-Type Commissions" for other horrible events in America's history such as Katrina and the recent "financial crisis."

Fact #29
Osama Bin Laden has not been indicted for the 9/11 attacks. Some time before 9/26/2001, FBI spokesman Rex Tomb says, "there’s going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged." He continues, "To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court." On 9/23/2001, then Secretary of State Colin Powell is asked, "will you release publicly a white paper which links [bin Laden] and his organization to this attack to put people at ease?" He responds by saying "we are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think in the near future we will be able to put out a paper, a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack." The following day, then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer when asked about Powell's statement says "I think that there was just a misinterpretation of the exact words the secretary used on the Sunday shows.… I’m not aware of anybody who said white paper, and the secretary didn’t say anything about a white paper yesterday." On 10/4/2001, Tony Blair will present a paper that makes the case for Osama Bin Laden's involvement before Parliament. It says, "this document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law.” Nevertheless, it continues, “on the basis of all the information available [Her Majesty’s Government] is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document." On 6/6/2006, Rex Tomb will say, "the reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." This according to Ed Haas of the Muckraker Report. On 8/28/2006, the Washington Post will report about this story. They state "from this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain. Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings." They speak to Rex Tomb who says "There's no mystery here" [...] "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it." According to David N. Kelley, a former U.S. attorney, "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was." Contrary to WaPo's claim that "bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings," Osama denied any involvement in the attacks on three separate ocassions. On 9/16/2001, he says, “I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.” On 9/28/2001, he says, "I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.… The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him.… Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year.… They needed an enemy.… Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked who carried out the attacks." On 12/26/2001, Bin Laden releases a tape that says the U.S.'s invasion of Afghanistan is "a vicious campaign based on mere suspicion." On 9/10/2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino will be asked a question. "But Osama bin Laden is the one that — you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 –" Her response is to say that "No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he’s sitting in jail right now."

Fact #30
The authenticity of video and audio recordings that have been released over the years allegedly from Osama Bin Laden have been disputed. On 10/29/2007, MSNBC reported about a "running debate among video analysts about whether al-Qaida faked" a video that was released on 9/7/2007. The so called "confession video" has been disputed from three different points of view. The translation of the tape was disputed. Professor Gernot Rotter from the University of Hamburg says, "this tape is of such poor quality that many passages are unintelligible. And those that are intelligible have often been taken out of context, so that you can’t use that as evidence. The American translators who listened to the tape and transcribed it obviously added things that they wanted to hear in many places.” The date the video was made is disputed by analyst Maher Osseiran. Several commentators questioned whether the person depicted in the video is actually Osama. According to CNN, Bush was asked about the authenticity of the tape, but "scoffed" at the idea "that the videotape of Osama bin Laden discussing the September 11 terrorist attacks might not be authentic." He said, "It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored" [...] "That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man."

Fact #31
The majority of the testimony from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks, something the 9/11 Report is heavily based on, was gotten through torture, and "third-hand - passed from the detainee, to the interrogator, to the person who writes up the interrogation report, and finally to [its] staff in the form of reports, not even transcripts." Because of the latter, the 9/11 Commission decided to add a disclaimer to the chapters that are heavily based on detainee interrogations. The disclaimer says, "Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaeda members. A number of these ‘detainees’ have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses—sworn enemies of the United States—is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process. We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al-Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the US government." The 9/11 Commission became unhappy because the government's investigators were "not asking the detainees the kinds of questions [it wanted] answered.” On 8/6/2007, the New Yorker reports that a former CIA official estimates that about "ninety percent of the information was unreliable." KSM's interrogations are mentioned as a source in the 9/11 report 211 times.

Fact #32
The Military Tribunals taking place at Guanatanamo Bay are a slap in the face to those seeking justice for the crimes of 9/11, as well as to the rest of the world. The level of secrecy is counterproductive. As the September 11th Advocates state, "prosecuting these men within a system that is secretive in nature and lacking in due process, and which uses evidence tainted by questionable interrogation methods and possibly even torture, is a dangerous endeavor." Several other family members have voiced their concerns about the secrecy. Unlike U.S. Federal courts, "the Guantanamo tribunal permits hearsay evidence as well as information gleaned from coercion and makes no guarantee that the accused will be able to confront his accusers or know all the evidence against him." As far as the media goes "only a handful of journalists will be allowed in the courtroom, confined to a glass enclosed booth where they can be shut off from hearing testimony on the judge's instructions." [...] "Audio recordings and pictures of the proceedings are barred." The ACLU charged that "the U.S. government is blocking the American Civil Liberties Union from paying attorneys representing suspected terrorists held here, insisting that the ACLU must first receive a license from the U.S. Treasury Department before making the payments." Once the Supreme Court ruled that detainees "have the right to challenge their detention in civilian court," the Bush Administration decided "to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time." A propaganda film was shown to the court room. "The video is entitled "The Al Qaeda Plan," an echo of "The Nazi Plan" made by Oscar-winning director George Stevens as evidence in the Nuremberg war crimes trials of German leaders after World War II." Judge Keith Allred approved the video, but said, "The planes crashing into the towers and the people screaming doesn't prove anything." Army Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti said that Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the Pentagon official who oversees the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals, was "abusive, bullying, unprofessional." Detainee lawyers say that "political interference taints the proceedings." On 4/18/2008, it was reported that the families would be able to watch the trials. According to Army Col. Lawrence Morris, "we're going to broadcast in real time to several locations that will be available just to victim families." Later, the military decided against that. However, they were going to allow Debra Burlingame, a 9/11 Family Member that happens to be pro-Bush to attend. Several family members released a statement that said, "selectively inviting only 9/11 family members whose views are in alignment with those of the Bush administration is only one example of the repeated attempts to infuse politics into what should be an impartial process that has the goal of achieving justice." On 10/27/2008, it was reported that "the Pentagon has made plans to bring victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- chosen by lottery -- to watch a hearing of reputed al Qaeda kingpin Khalid Sheik Mohammed's death penalty trial." Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said, "Soon, some of those victim families will have the opportunity to see firsthand the fair, open and just trials of those alleged to have perpetrated these horrific acts." The Miami Herald cites, "a long-promised victims witness program, which will enable thousands of family members of the Sept. 11 dead to watch the eventual trial through satellite feeds to four U.S. military bases." On 12/10/2008, a group of 31 9/11 family members, along with the ACLU released a statement that said, "many of us do not believe these military commissions to be fair, in accordance with American values, or capable of achieving the justice that 9/11 family members and all Americans deserve."

Fact #33
The resulting dust from the collapse of the buildings on 9/11/2001 was toxic, and people like Condoleezza Rice and Christie Todd Whitman lied about it so things like Wall Street could reopen. As a result, several 1000 9/11 First Responders, and residents of New York are sick and dying. Both local and Federal Governments have ignored them in their time of need.

Fact #34
Suspicious trading in the world markets took place before 9/11/2001. On or around 8/6/2001, what appear to be "suspicious" put option purchases are made. According to one analyst, "from what I’m hearing, it’s more than coincidence." In early September 2001, "suspicious" short selling of reinsurance company stocks take place. Also in September 2001, suspicion of insider trading takes place in many other countries, resulting in the creation of several investigations. The countries mentioned are Belgium, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, Cyprus, U.K., Italy, and Japan. On 10/3/2001, the San Francisco Chronicle will report that the NYSE sees "unusually heavy trading in airline and related stocks several days before the attacks." Some of those companies are American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United, and US Airways. In early September 2001, there is a sharp increase in short selling of American and United Airlines stocks. Between 9/6/2001, and 9/10/2001, suspicious trading of put options on American and United Airlines occur. Ernst Welteke, the President of a German central bank, says that his bank has done a study. "There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge." His researchers have found "almost irrefutable proof of insider trading." During the time of the 9/11 Commission, the families pressed for answers about this suspicious trading. The 9/11 Report states, "highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation." [...] "The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous."

Fact #35
The 9/11 Report says, "to date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years." The 9/11 Commission repeats this in a document entitled, "The Financing of the 9/11 Plot." "To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. As we have discussed above, the compelling evidence appears to trace the bulk of the funds directly back to KSM and, possibly, Qatari, but no further. Available information on this subject has thus far has not been illuminating. According to KSM, Bin Ladin provided 85–95 percent of the funds for the plot from his personal wealth, with the remainder coming from general al Qaeda funds. To the extent KSM intended to refer to wealth Bin Ladin inherited from his family or derived from any business activity, this claim is almost certainly wrong, because Bin Ladin was not personally financing al Qaeda during this time frame. Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular source of funds dried up, it could have easily tapped a different source or diverted money from a different project to fund an attack that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years."

Fact #36
"Al-Qaeda" has curious connections to intelligence agencies all over the world. Wikipedia defines "Al-Qaeda" as "an international Sunni Islamist movement founded in 1988. Al-Qaeda have attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. These actions were followed by the US government launching a military and intelligence campaign against al-Qaeda called the War on Terror." On 9/28/2006, the Washington Post reported that "a leaked document accuses Pakistan's intelligence agency of indirectly supporting terrorist groups including al-Qaida and calls on Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to disband the agency." [...] "Indirectly, Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism _ whether in London on (July 7, 2005) or in Afghanistan or Iraq." The BBC reports that " [The West has] turned a blind eye towards existing instability and the indirect protection of Al Qaeda and promotion of terrorism." On 9/30/2006, the BBC reported Mumbai Police Commissioner AN Roy's statement that, "We have solved the 11 July bombings case. The whole attack was planned by Pakistan's ISI and carried out by Lashkar-e-Toiba and their operatives in India." On 10/7/2006, the Sunday Times reports that "captured Taliban fighters and failed suicide bombers have confirmed that they were trained by the Pakistani intelligence service, known as the ISI." In March 2001, Selig Harrison, a "long-time regional expert" says, "the CIA still has close links with the ISI." Harrison is said to have "extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia." In 2000, "Ahmed Rashid, longtime regional correspondent for the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph" referred to the U.S. as "Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to [Pakistan’s] military and the ISI." On 10/19/2007, B. Raman reported that "Brig Ejaz Shah, a former officer of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence" [...] "used to be the handling officer of Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar, the amir of the Taliban." When I asked Mr. Raman "What does it mean to be Osama Bin Laden's "Handling Officer" for the Pakistani ISI? What is the responsibility of the person that has this particular job?" his response was, "The handling officer of a source in Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies is the person who looks after the welfare of the source, keeps him motivated and uses him as needed. The source cannot meet anybody else other than his handling officer except the head of the agency. One source--one handling officer is the general rule. This is to prevent the exposure of the operation and maintain its deniability. I understand in the CIA they call him the Running Officer of a source." On 10/31/2001, Le Figaro reports that while staying in the American hospital in Dubai, he is treated by Dr. Terry Callaway. "He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden’s personal physician as well as al-Qaeda’s second-in-command), plus several bodyguards. Callaway supposedly treated bin Laden in 1996 and 1998, also in Dubai. Callaway later refuses to answer any questions on this matter." "During his stay, bin Laden is visited by “several members of his family and Saudi personalities,” including Prince Turki al-Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence." "On July 12, bin Laden reportedly meets with CIA agent Larry Mitchell in the hospital. Mitchell apparently lives in Dubai as an Arab specialist under the cover of being a consular agent. The CIA, the Dubai hospital, and even bin Laden deny the story. The two news organizations that broke the story, Le Figaro and Radio France International, stand by their reporting." "The Guardian claims that the story originated from French intelligence, “which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.” The Guardian adds that during his stay bin Laden is also visited by a second CIA officer." "In 2003, reporter Richard Labeviere will provide additional details of what he claims happened in a book entitled “The Corridors of Terror.” He claims he learned about the meeting from a contact in the Dubai hospital. He claims the event was confirmed in detail by a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain. This prince claimed the meeting was arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal. The prince said, “By organizing this meeting…Turki thought he could start direct negotiations between [bin Laden] and the CIA on one fundamental point: that bin Laden and his supporters end their hostilities against American interests.” In exchange, the CIA and Saudis would allow bin Laden to return to Saudi Arabia and live freely there. The meeting is said to be a failure." "On July 15, Larry Mitchell reportedly returns to CIA headquarters to report on his meeting with bin Laden." "French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It “is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989." "A CIA spokesman calls the entire account of bin Laden’s stay at Dubai “sheer fantasy." Luai Sakra, an alleged CIA informant is said to have trained 6 of the 9/11 hijackers. Ali Mohamed has connections to both the FBI and the CIA. On 3/17/2007, Seymour Hersh reported that, "Iran-Contra veterans working out of Dick Cheney's office are using stolen funds from Iraq to arm al Qaeda-tied groups and foment a larger Sunni-Shia war." On 4/3/2007, ABCNews reported that, "a Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005.” […] “Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February." As I pointed out in Fact #20, "Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the Pakistani ISI, someone who met with U.S. elected and appointed officials in the weeks before 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, ordered possible MI6 Agent Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta." I refer you back to Fact #35.

Fact #37
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland had a lot of interesting things to say. Between January and July of 2003, the Bush Administration delayed the release of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry Report until after the start of the Iraq War. Max Cleland says, "The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaeda) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war. There’s no connection, and that’s been confirmed by some of bin Laden’s terrorist followers… What you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends. The reason this report was delayed for so long—deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created—is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over… before (it) came out. Had this report come out in January [2003] like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration." After 1/27/2003, Max Cleland is disappointed with the start of the 9/11 Commission's investigation. Specifically, he is not happy that the Commission "will not issue subpoenas for the documents it wants and will have a single non-partisan staff headed by executive director Philip Zelikow, who is close to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice." In May 2003, Max Cleland wanted the 9/11 Commission to investigate the false claims tying Iraq to 9/11 made by the Bush Administration. He says, "they were focused on Iraq, they were planning a war on Iraq, they were not paying attention to the business at hand." Zelikow, Kean, and Hamilton opposed this. Phil Shenon will write, "even some of the Democrats [on the commission] were distancing themselves from him. Cleland knew he was quickly becoming a pariah." Cleland will say, "it was painfully obvious to me that there was this blanket over the commission" [...] "Anybody who spoke out or dissented, whether against George Bush, the White House, or the war against Iraq, was going to be marginalized." In November 2003, the Commission, and the White House were battling over how much access the Commission would have to Bush daily briefings. Cleland says, "all ten commissioners should have full, unfettered, and unrestricted access to all evidence." In December 2003, Max Cleland is offered a "position on the board of the Export-Import Bank." He accepts. Before leaving the Commission, he calls the Bush Administration's stonewalling of the Commission a "national scandal," and says "I’m not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I’m not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I’m not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I’m not going to be part of that. This is serious." On 10/26/2003, Cleland tells the New York Times "as each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted."

Fact #38
Over the years, several polls have been conducted that show a majority of people are concerned about this issue. In August 2004, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded "half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." In May 2006, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded 45% of voting Americans think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success." In September 2007, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded "51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 Attacks." In August 2006, Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted a poll that concluded, "more than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." In November 2007, Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted another poll that concluded, "nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings."

Fact #39
Several interesting and thought provoking quotes have been made by people over the years with regards to the 9/11 attacks. Sen. Patrick Leahy said, "the two questions that the congress will not ask, because republicans wont allow it, is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama Bin Laden cornered why didnt they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions these questions would have been asked years ago." 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said, "By the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place. In the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made. The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission." 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser said, "it is clear that [Zelikow] should never have been permitted to be a member of the commission, since it is the mandate of the commission to identify the source of failures. We can now see that trail would lead directly to the staff director himself." On 7/22/2005, at the 9/11 Congressional Briefing chaired by then Rep. Cynthia McKinney, 9/11 Family Members Monica Gabrielle, and Mindy Kleinberg accompanied 9/11 Family Member Lorie Van Auken who said, "the 9/11 Commission’s report is one year old today. This report was supposed to provide the definitive account of what had transpired on September eleven, 2001. We hoped that our thousands of unanswered questions would be addressed and answered. Yet incredibly we have found that the Commission’s definitive final report has actually yielded more questions than answers." 9/11 Family Member Donna Marsh O'Connor said at the National Press Club on 9/11/2006, "This Government has made me a victim of Conspiracy Theories, because they haven't answered fully, or allowed anyone to ask the true questions of September 11th, and that's what I'm asking from you today. For exposure. We are not crazy. We have questions. We demand answers. [...] We're asking for a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end."

Fact #40
A document entitled, "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba" from 1962 proves BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT that elements within our Government are MORE THAN CAPABLE of devising a "9/11 Type" plan.

Fact #41
There are several indications that Osama Bin Laden has been protected, and even allowed to escape after the 9/11 attacks. On 12/24/1998, at the request of then CIA Director George Tenet, President Clinton signs an order authorizing the CIA to assassinate Osama Bin Laden. Philip Shenon will write that Clinton's authorization is "written in stark language” and it makes it very clear “that the president was telling the tribal leaders they could kill bin Laden." However, this order is "closely held within the CIA, and the 9/11 Commission will comment, “This intent [to have bin Laden killed"> was never well communicated or understood within the agency." "Apparently, it is never even communicated to Michael Scheuer, head of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit. Scheuer will later express his frustration at not being allowed to try to kill bin Laden, “We always talked about how much easier it would have been to kill him." In February 1999, Clinton rewrites the order for the CIA and "deletes the wording authorizing an operation to simply kill bin Laden." In December 1999, Clinton issues a wider memo that deals "with “a wider set of contingencies,” and they authorize the use of force only within the context of a capture operation, not an assassination attempt. The CIA is therefore allowed to try to kill bin Laden only using one specific group of assets—tribal leaders tracking bin Laden in Afghanistan, still based on the earlier instructions. But the CIA does not test “the limits of available legal authority,” apparently because the CIA’s bin Laden unit is not told of the kill authorization and due to confusion." On 9/21/2001, it is reported that President Putin "had warned the Clinton administration about the dangers posed by Bin Laden. "Washington's reaction at the time really amazed me. They shrugged their shoulders and said matter-of-factly: 'We can't do anything because the Taliban does not want to turn him over'." After 9/11, Bush says about Bin Laden, "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.” Two days after that, he says, "I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" In Afghanistan, veteran CIA agent Gary Berntsen is in charge of the team responsible for capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden called "Jawbreaker." "He will claim that at the start of December 2001, one of his Arabic-speaking CIA agents finds a radio on a dead al-Qaeda fighter during a battle in the Tora Bora region. This agent hears bin Laden repeatedly attempt to rally his troops. On the same radio, that agent and another CIA agent who speaks Arabic hear bin Laden apologizing to his troops for getting them trapped and killed by US aerial bombing. Based on this information, Berntsen makes a formal request for 800 US troops to be deployed along the Pakistani border to prevent bin Laden’s escape. The request is not granted. Berntsen’s lawyer later claims, “Gary coordinated most of the boots on the ground. We knew where bin Laden was within a very circumscribed area. It was full of caves and tunnels but we could have bombed them or searched them one by one. The Pentagon failed to deploy sufficient troops to seal them off." "A Knight Ridder investigative report will later conclude, “While more than 1,200 US Marines [sit] at an abandoned air base in the desert 80 miles away, Franks and other commanders [rely] on three Afghan warlords and a small number of American, British, and Australian special forces to stop al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters from escaping across the mountains into Pakistan.” Military and intelligence officials warn Franks that the two main Afghan commanders cannot be trusted. This turns out to be correct, as the warlords accept bribes from al-Qaeda leaders to let them escape." On 12/5/2001, Brig. Gen. James N. Mattis "is convinced his forces can seal the Tora Bora area to trap bin Laden there. Around this date, Mattis argues strongly to his military superiors at Centcom that his troops should fight at Tora Bora, but he is turned down." Between December 8th - 14th, British special forces pursue Osama Bin Laden, and are reportedly "20 minutes behind" him but are "pulled off to allow US troops to go in for the kill.” However, it takes hours for the Americans to arrive, by which time bin Laden has escaped." On 10/6/2008, it is reported that "a team of elite Delta Force commandos was sent into Afghanistan with an assignment to find and kill Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora" but were stopped by U.S. officials. On 60 Minutes, the commando leader is asked by Scott Pelley, "how often does Delta come up with a tactical plan that's disapproved by higher headquarters?" His answer is "in my experience, in my five years at Delta, never before." Apparently, Cofer Black is fired on 5/17/2002. "Six anonymous US intelligence officials will claim that, in fact, Black is removed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld because Black publicly revealed details of the US military’s failure to capture or kill bin Laden in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in late 2001." On 3/13/2002, Bush says, "He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.” Instead, Bush is "deeply concerned about Iraq.”

Fact #42
Over the years, there have been several reports indicating that Osama Bin Laden is dead. On 12/26/2001, Fox News reported that "Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication." On 1/18/2002, President Pervez Musharraf says, "I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a ... kidney patient." On 7/18/2002, the FBI's counter-terroism chief Dale Watson says, "I am not really sure of the answer... I personally think he is probably not with us anymore but I have no evidence to support that." On 10/7/2002, President Hamid Karzai says that Bin Laden is probably dead. On 10/16/2002, Israeli intelligence sources report that Osama is dead. On 10/23/2005, a Multan newspaper reports that Osama Bin Laden, "died four months ago in a village near Kandahar of severe illness." On 3/15/2006, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports about a claim by then Rep. Curt Weldon that Osama Bin Laden died in Iran. On 9/23/2006, it is reported that "a French regional newspaper quoted a French secret service report on Saturday as saying that Saudi Arabia is convinced that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan last month." President Chirac said this was "in no way whatsoever confirmed." Recently, former CIA official Robert Baer said that he thinks Osama is dead. On 6/30/2008, Time released an article entitled, "Is Osama bin Laden Dying ... Again?"

Fact #43
Several of the alleged hijackers should not have been given visas. Between April 3-7, 2001, three hijackers are given visas to the United States through the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. They are Nawaf Alhazmi, Salem Alhazmi, and Khalid Almihdar. "Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi are already "al-Qaeda veterans" and battle-hardened killers." "All three men have indicators in their passports marking them as Islamist radicals. These indicators are used to track them by the Saudi authorities, but are apparently not noticed by US officials." According to Michael Springmann, someone who was the head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from Sept. 87 to March of 89, said that he was "repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants." "He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah."

Fact #44
Footnote 44 of the 9/11 Report states, "CIA cable,“Activities of Bin Ladin Associate Khalid Revealed,” Jan. 4, 2000. His Saudi passport—which contained a visa for travel to the United States—was photocopied and forwarded to CIA headquarters. This information was not shared with FBI headquarters until August 2001. An FBI agent detailed to the Bin Ladin unit at CIA attempted to share this information with colleagues at FBI headquarters. A CIA desk officer instructed him not to send the cable with this information. Several hours later, this same desk officer drafted a cable distributed solely within CIA alleging that the visa documents had been shared with the FBI. She admitted she did not personally share the information and cannot identify who told her they had been shared. We were unable to locate anyone who claimed to have shared the information. Contemporaneous documents contradict the claim that they were shared. DOJ Inspector General interview of Doug M., Feb. 12, 2004; DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael, Oct. 31, 2002; CIA cable, Jan. 5, 2000; DOJ Inspector General report,“ A Review of the FBI’s Handling of Intelligence Information Related to the 9/11 Attacks,” July 2, 2004, p. 282." 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser referred to George Tenet as "Mr. "I failed to tell the FBI for 18 months that two known al Qaeda killers were living in San Diego and planning the 9/11 attacks."

Fact #45
NIST released a report about the collapse of building 7 that is in dispute. Recently, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) published comments critiquing NIST's report on building 7. The September Eleventh Advocates released a statement that cleverly mocked their report. There is an organization known as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that disputes this report. A physics professor formerly of Brigham Young University named Steven E. Jones, a whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories named Kevin Ryan, and several others belong to a group called Scholars For 9/11 Truth & Justice that have written several critiques of NIST's reports from over the years that have been published. NIST's questionable report on building 7 caused people that were once on the fence regarding the collapse of those buildings on 9/11, to think that those advocating something different than NIST's conclusions, responsibly, might be right.

Fact #46
After the 9/11 attacks, George Bush's popularity ratings soared to record numbers. On 9/18/2001, the Washington Post reported that, "the country has rallied to the president's side. Even those who wished for a little more eloquence from him did not want to hear a word against him. Ask any journalist who raised questions about his initial handling of the crisis: They have been inundated with furious calls calling them a disgrace to their profession and even traitors. Congress is well aware that George Bush has become a colossus, surpassing his father's 90 percent approval rating after the Persian Gulf War. Congress has been more than satisfied with a supporting role in the wake of the horror. On Tuesday night members convened and sang "God Bless America" and pledged allegiance to Bush. Democratic consternation and misgivings have been expressed behind the scenes. When Bush requested blanket authority for retaliation, some remembered the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which they unwarily gave to Lyndon Johnson during Vietnam and came to regret. They said the president's current powers give him all the authority he needed to punish the authors of the obscene attacks. But, as one Democrat said disconsolately, "No one wants to say no to Bush now."

Fact #47
The Moussaoui Trial had a lot of problems, and revealed a lot of information. On 3/7/2006, the Associated Press reported that "a defense lawyer got FBI agent Michael Anticev to admit that the FBI was aware years before Nine-Eleven that al Qaida planned to slam planes into prominent buildings." On 3/13/2006, AP reports that "an angry federal judge unexpectedly recessed the death penalty trial of al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to consider whether government violations of her rules against coaching witnesses should remove the death penalty as an option." Another AP report cites that a, "government lawyer who has jeopardized the prosecution of al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui used a transcript of the first day of the trial to try to shape future testimony to meet or deflect possible defense attacks, court documents indicate." [...] "Arguing that Martin's e-mails tainted three government and four defense witnesses beyond repair, the defense has asked the judge to dismiss the government's bid to execute Moussaoui, the only person charged in this country in connection with al-Qaida's Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." This "outraged" the families. "I was really horrified and very outraged to hear that this type of mistake was made," Regenhard said. "This is probably one of the most important trials in the history of this country — how someone could put that at risk. She betrayed the families of the victims who certainly have been waiting nearly five long years to get some kind of scintilla of justice." On 3/15/2006, the Washington Post reports that "U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema decided yesterday to exclude all aviation security evidence after Martin violated a court order by e-mailing trial transcripts to seven witnesses and coaching them about their upcoming testimony." [...] "I am furious," said Rosemary Dillard, whose husband, Eddie, was killed on the plane that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. "Aviation is a big part of this case. Aviation is what killed our loved ones. It was planes. You take aviation out . . . where do they go from here?" [...] "How are we supposed to get any new information now?" said Fiona Havlish, formerly of Buck County, Pa., whose husband was killed at the World Trade Center. "I think what all of us are looking for is the truth, and the truth has not been forthcoming out of Washington. I mean, I can only speak for myself, but I do not feel that the truth has come out no matter how hard we as family members have tried. And this was just one more avenue to find a particle of truth, and that is being thwarted." [...] "Some wondered whether she was being used as a scapegoat for other government officials who did not want the aviation security evidence to be made public." [...] "I don't think she is alone," Dillard said in a telephone interview last night. "I just don't think she could have gotten away with that. Somebody helped her or prompted her. It just makes me wonder whether this is one more thing where no one is going to be held accountable. . . . It's almost too clean. I wonder if there is more to the story than we know." [...] "I felt the government wasn't telling us all that it knew, and I do know that feeling is shared in the Massachusetts circle of families within which I travel," said Blake Allison, of Hanover, N.H., whose wife, Anna Allison, was killed on American Airlines Flight 11. "We talked about this the first day of the trial, the hope that the trial would bring some clarity to some of the circumstances leading up to 9/11." On 3/15/2006, the Sunday Times reports more about 9/11 Family Member Rosemary Dillard's anger about what happened. "I felt like my heart had been ripped out," said Rosemary Dillard, whose husband Eddie was killed aboard the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. "I felt like my husband had been killed again. I felt like the Government had let me down again." [...] "I don't think in the annals of criminal law there has ever been a case with this many significant problems," said Judge Brinkema, who considered abandoning the trial altogether but eventually decided to adjourn it until Monday." [...] "The missing testimony was expected to deal with how much the Federal Aviation Administration already knew about possible terror threats to airlines prior to 9/11, and what security measures were in place." On 3/16/2006, MSNBC reports that "the lawyer whose coaching of witnesses in the death penalty case of Zacarias Moussaoui caused his trial to be halted was placed on administrative leave from her job, the Transportation Security Administration said Thursday." On 3/17/2006, AP reports that "the judge has issued a written order that says prosecutors can present exhibits and a witness or witnesses if they are untainted by contact with Transportation Security Administration lawyer Carla Martin." On 3/20/2006, Reuters reports that "an FBI agent testified in the sentencing trial of September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui on Monday that agency superiors repeatedly blocked his efforts to warn of a possible terror attack. Harry Samit, the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui three weeks before the deadly airliner hijackings that killed 3,000 people, said he tried to tell his superiors that he thought a hijacking plan might be in the works. "You tried to move heaven and earth to get a search warrant to search this man's belongings. You were obstructed," defense attorney Edward MacMahon said as the trial resumed after a week's delay over improper witness coaching. "From a particular individual in the (FBI's) Radical Fundamentalist Unit, yes sir, I was obstructed," Samit said." Forbes reports that "MacMahon (Moussaoui defense attorney) introduced an Aug. 31 letter Samit drafted "to advise the FAA of a potential threat to security of commercial aircraft" from whomever Moussaoui was conspiring with. But Maltbie barred him from sending it to FAA headquarters, saying he would handle that, Samit testified. The agent added that he did tell FAA officials in Minneapolis of his suspicions." On 3/25/2006, the Washington Post reports that the families hope for answers at the Moussaoui Trial is "unfulfilled."

Fact #48
On 9/25/2006, former 9/11 Commission Richard Ben Veniste makes public knowledge a deal within the 9/11 Commission to keep Bush, Cheney, and Clinton's testimony classified until 2009. "BLITZER: Now, I read this report, the 9/11 Commission report. This is a big, thick book. I don't see anything and I don't remember seeing anything about this exchange that you had with the president in this report. BEN-VENISTE: Well, I had hoped that we had -- we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question. BLITZER: Why? BEN-VENISTE: I didn't have the votes. BLITZER: Well, was -- were the Republican members trying to protect the president and the vice president? Is that what your suspicion is? BEN-VENISTE: I think the question was that there was a degree of confidentiality associated with that and that we would take from that the output that is reflected in the report, but go no further. And that until some five years' time after our work, we would keep that confidential. I thought we would be better to make all of the information that we had available to the public and make our report as transparent as possible so that the American public could have that."

Fact #49
In the fall of 2003, former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, Sandy Berger, "removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency’s internal watchdog said Wednesday.” [...] “Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration’s representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.” On 4/1/2005, it was reported that Berger “pleaded guilty yesterday to pilfering classified documents from the National Archives, saying he showed “very poor judgment” and that his actions were “wrong.” On 1/9/2007, Fox News reports that “some classified documents that were unlawfully removed from the National Archives three years ago may never have reached their intended destination — the Sept. 11 commission, a House Republican report concluded Tuesday.” [...] “Released by Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the report said Berger could have taken White House staff working papers that never were inventoried by the archives. In that case, nobody would know they were gone, the report said.”

Fact #50
Several companies friendly to the Bush Administration as well as others, and several partners in the "War On Terror" have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks. A long time ago at the 2004 9/11 People's Commission, I asked ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern what he thought could be the possible motives (Quicktime required) for doing something as horrible as 9/11. He mentioned an acronym for "O.I.L." that he created. “O for oil, I for Israel, and L for the logistical bases necessary to exert (inaudible) military capability in that part of the world.” Before he answered my question, he spoke of the PNAC’s dream of invading Iraq. He spoke of eliminating any possible threat to the state of Israel. He spoke of what were considered then to be 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, and so on. Since 9/11, oil companies like Exxon, Shell, and Chevron have made massive fortunes. on 6/20/2008, the Guardian reported that "Iraq is preparing to allow four of the biggest western oil companies to renew exploitation of the country's vast reserves for the first time in almost four decades. Iraq's oil ministry stepped up talks with BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total after the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, visited Iraq in March, where he also pressed the government to revive efforts to pass the hydrocarbon law that nationalist MPs were blocking. The first contracts are expected to be signed this month. Some 90% of Iraq's budget comes from oil revenues." Companies like Bechtel and Halliburton have made fortunes because of the "War On Terror." Granted, like most companies, they have lost some of those fortunes within the last two months. Since 9/11, the Bush Administration have made repeated claims that they will protect Israel. On 1/26/2006, the Mail & Guardian reports that Bush has committed to the "defence of Israel." On 2/1/2006, Reuters reports that Bush says the U.S. would defend Israel against Iran. On 5/23/2006, CNN reports that Bush promises to protect Israel if attacked by Iran. On 1/7/2008, AFP reports that Bush promises again to protect Israel if attacked by Iran. Haaretz reported about a possible pipeline of oil going from Iraq to Israel. On 5/24/2007, the Daily India reports that "a new study released by the Centre for Public Integrity, a non-profit organisation based in Washington, has said that Pakistan has been the largest recipient of anti-terror funds in the four years after 9/11." On 5/30/2007, publicintegrity.org reported that most of the money Pakistan received "came through a Defense Department program subject to virtually no congressional oversight." According to Spencer Ackerman, a lot of the money came in the form of "untraceable cash transfers." Both Pakistan and Israel are considered partners in the "War On Terror." If we're not staying in Iraq, we sure have a massive U.S. embassy, "the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future." According to Wiki, Ray McGovern, "was a mid-level officer in the CIA in the 1960s where his focus was analysis of Soviet policy toward Vietnam. McGovern was one of President Ronald Reagan's intelligence briefers from 1981-85; he was in charge of preparing daily security briefs for Reagan, Vice President George H.W. Bush, the National Security Advisor, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Cabinet. Later, McGovern was one of several senior CIA analysts who prepared the President's Daily Brief (PDB) during the first Bush administration." It seems to me that he knows what he's talking about.

There are so many facts concerning the 9/11 attacks, that it is impossible to know them all. People like to laugh at, and mock our theories (that we all have) concerning the events of 9/11. However, they have a difficult time with the facts. I hope that I have proven my point.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am convinced some elements within our Government, and others were complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As you can see above, the information that exists today clearly points in that direction. We have pieces to the puzzle, and we KNOW who refuses to give up the other pieces. However, as I said, this is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Let's have a real investigation, be it a domestic or international one, and do what can only be described as the right thing. Holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, whoever they may be, accountable. It is long overdue. Justice has never been more needed. The perverse usage of that day can no longer continue. It is time to take away the "9/11 Card," and let those poor 2,973 souls finally rest in peace.

Scumbag

01-08-2009, 07:59 AM

Thanks to www.historycommons.org, DHS, and simuvac. This is dedicated to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17949

Jon Gold
9/25/2008
See what I mean!
Got an original thought there, Lemingway or you just happy to use other peoples' opinions? And I stress OPINIONS!

CaptainSuper

01-08-2009, 01:53 PM

ughhhh more 911 conspiracy hoopla

Jesse Hemingway

01-11-2009, 01:28 PM

See what I mean!
Got an original thought there, Lemingway or you just happy to use other peoples' opinions? And I stress OPINIONS!

I very happy for you scumbag that YOU accept the Answers the United States Government has stated concerning 9/11 so it really indicates nothing by knocking what I post. I find all the answers pretty god dam pedestrian concern 9/11 given by the United States Government and a complete indication of a lack of transparency. So scumbag keep, throwing your barbs in, just because I do not believe the United States Government story surrounding 9/11. :lmao2:

Remember scumbag you have hitched your wagon to this group running the country over the last 8 years; they are completely fucking incompetent or a criminal enterprise that is the only two choices after living through the last 8 years which is a fact. :lmao2: :lmao2:

Next scumbag you are going to tell me just how successful the last eight years have been one of there first decision was to lower taxes and start a war I guess that falls in completely fucking incompetent category. Now you have it documented that we been in a recession for over a year and they ran up oil prices for the first eight months as demand for oil was declining I guess that falls in criminal enterprise category. According to Scumbag that makes the United States governments’ version of 9/11 as their most competent and honest work in the last 8 years dam you are brilliant Scumbag at separating bull shit from reality.

Jesse Hemingway

01-11-2009, 01:33 PM

See what I mean!
Got an original thought there, Lemingway or you just happy to use other peoples' opinions? And I stress OPINIONS!

BTW dickbag the thread is titled 9/11 stuff :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

disrupter

01-14-2009, 01:37 PM

It is impossible for jet fuel to get hot enough to create molten metal,
yet everywhere at the WTC we find pools of slag from motenized metal.
You can even see it dripping from the tower before it collapsed.

There was molten metal & underground fires for 5 weeks or more at the WTC.

It was some kind of inside job.

America there are murderers in you midst.
People in positions of power & access who did this to you.
I don't know exactly who they are or how many but irrefutably they are there & you need to be very vigilant for them, so they don't do something like this or worse, now or ever again.

Jesse Hemingway

01-17-2009, 12:16 PM

Self aggrandized legacy of George W. Bush and his administration

"What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."

By: Jesse Hemingway

The United States of America has sunk to new moral and legal depths, by allowing the George W. Bush administration to exit the crime scene just like cockroaches fleeing for safety to the nearest dark crevice when a light goes on. Considering that this country lacks the intellectual honesty to conduct substantive moral and legal inventory of George W. Bush tenure as the failure and chief let me jog your memory. First, faith based alcohol and drug addiction therapy is totally worthless. So I have decided to look at the only moment of this self aggrandized legacy of George W. Bush claims as a success.

George W. Bush was the first citizen that was appointed by the Supreme Court to the office of President of the United States that is why when he made the following statement it was true.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Reference:

http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_goddamned-piece-of-paper.pdf

George W. Bush understood that when the Supreme Court over reached their Constitutional authority by appointing Citizen George to the office of President along with protection by both republican dominated houses. That a criminal enterprise was spawned yes look at the trail of corruption that followed first step in a successful criminal enterprise of this magnitude is to buy off the commercial media. I am not going to go over the fact that 600 trillion dollars of worthless investment devices were created under this criminal enterprise to give the appearance that the global economy was booming. That amount 600 trillion is five times the combined wealth of the entire world and nearly ten times the global GDP; it was just the method used by this criminal enterprise to create a nonexistent source of seed money; to compromise the rational functions of the world to enable their unabated global crime spree to flourish.

Self aggrandized legacy of George W. Bush and his administration has burnt every bridge possible manifesting their real identity as a criminal enterprise as they escape. This criminal enterprise has been reduced to claiming the 9/11 attacks as their only single legacy success. Now the question is that the only event they did not manipulate was 9/11? After that horrific event this criminal enterprise keep us safe. The following is from the bowels of the criminal enterprise concerning the initial opening of an investigation in to the 9/11 attacks to make sure it will not happen again and keep us safe.

"White House Opposed Formation of Commission: President Bush and Vice President Cheney both contacted then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in the months after 9/11 to insist on strict limits in the scope of any investigation into the attacks.

Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks. If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.

That is the only fact that matters: the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission."

Once the criminal enterprise was humiliated into conducting an investigation into 9/11 the only thing they now declare as being their legitimate success in their tenure, as an unregulated criminal and terror spree. The leaders of the 9/11 commission in their own words ultimately concluded that the 9/11 commission was compromised from the onset. That the criminal enterprise obstructed the efforts of the 9/11 commission investigation, even their legacy is a lie. Even the most pedestrian journalists can logically deduce and refute their final moment of fame that the George W. Bush and his administration was just a pathetic legacy, George W. Bush is as fraudulent as his appointment to the office of president of the United States.

Stonewalled by the C.I.A.

By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Published: January 2, 2008

Washington

MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.

The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.

When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been contained in such videotapes.

The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees were treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently recorded and then destroyed.

The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as they answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific questions, they would do all they could to answer them.

So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more important in our view, asked for details about the translation process in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories; the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.

The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.

In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.

A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

Jesse Hemingway

02-01-2009, 01:42 PM

George W Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider
Written by www.daily.pk
Tuesday, 20 May 2008 06:20
Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff.

Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole (R) and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people.

The following is from his latest visit to Alex Jones' radio show.

Note: All honor to Stanley Hilton for risking his life so that we may know the truth of 9/11.

The Bush Junta Unmasked

"This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder." --Stanley Hilton

Alex Jones interview of Stanley Hilton, attorney for 911 taxpayers' lawsuit

AJ: He is back with us. He is former Bob Dole's chief of staff, very successful counselor, lawyer. He represents hundreds of the victims families of 9/11. He is suing Bush for involvement in 9/11. Now a major Zogby poll out - half of New Yorkers think the government was involved in 9/11. And joining us for the next 35 minutes, into the next hour, is Stanley Hilton. Stanley, it's great to have you on with us.

SH: Glad to be on.

AJ: We'll have to recap this when we start the next hour, but just in a nutshell, you have a lawsuit going, you've deposed a lot of military officers. You know the truth of 9/11. Just in a nutshell, what is your case alleging?

SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.

AJ: That's right. They were all Straussian followers of a Nazi-like professor. And now they are setting it up here in America. Stanley, I know you deposed a lot of people and you've got your $7 million dollar lawsuit with hundreds of the victim's families involved.

SH: 7 billion, 7 billion

AJ: Yeah, 7 billion. Can you go over some of the new and incriminating evidence you've got of them ordering the attack?

SH: Yes, let me just say that this is a taxpayers' class action lawsuit as well as a suit on behalf of the families and the basic three arguments are they violated the Constitution by ordering this event. And secondly that they [garbled] fraudulent Federal Claims Act, Title 31 of the U.S. Code in which Bush presented false and fraudulent evidence to Congress to get the Iraq war authorization. And, of course, he related it to 9/11 and claimed that Saddam was involved with that, and all these lies.

AJ: Tell you what, stay there. Stanley, we've got to break. Let's come back and get into the evidence. BREAK

AJ: All right my friends, second hour, the anniversary of the globalist attack coming up. It's an amazing individual we have on the line. Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political scientist, a lawyer, he went to school with Rumsfeld and others, he wrote his thesis about how to turn America into a dictatorship using a fake Pearl Harbor attack. He's suing the U.S. government for carrying out 9/11. He has hundreds of the victims' families signing onto it - it's a $7 billion lawsuit. And he is Stanley Hilton. I know that a lot of stations just joined us in Los Angeles and Rhode Island and Missouri and Florida and all over. Please sir, recap what you were just stating and then let's get into the new evidence. And then we'll get into why you are being harassed by the FBI, as other FBI people are being harassed who have been blowing the whistle on this. So, this is really getting serious. Stanley, tell us all about it.

SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It's not just incompetence - in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress-rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, "seen on television the first plane attack the first tower." And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government-ordered thing. We are suing them under the Constitution for violating Americans' rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fr