Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What Really Happened On 9/11?
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (Jesus of Suburbia @ Friday, 19 May 2006, 1:23 am) *
I want to start a thread where we can hopefully discuss some of the objections and counter-objections to what happened on 9/11, the government's story, and the conspiracy theories. I am proposing a full scale debate at the POAC forums about 9/11. I am not on the side of the conspiracy theorist on this one and i have a lot of good reasons. Then again, i have an open mind and we are all smart people, so maybe we can discuss this to try and figure out what we can. Trust me, i have looked at all of the conspiracy theories and i am just not convinced. Now, i don't think Bush was a hero on 9/11 and i do admit there are some fishy things about what happened but i can not go so far as LIHOP or MIHOP points of view. My personal beliefs on the subject revolve around the administration's complete incompetence and their ability to exploit tragedy. I will leave it at that for now, since it is late.



Soon the next 9-11 "false flag terror event" will occur. The BushCo oil cartel is controlled by the CFR globalists. BushCo and the Puppeteers are all profiteering from another series of wars.

Just think, the cream off the top of "trillions" is measured in "billions."

Think about it. Isn't it funny how the police can get you for obstructing some petty offense because you remain mute, yet these criminals have killed over a million innocent (as in had nothing to do with 9-11) human beings based on LIES>

Do ya get it?


By the way, the "incompetence" theory is just pathetic. Since Bush stole election 2000, which incidentally worked, he has gotten away with hundreds of crimes and not even been questioned. I'd say that is a pretty good success rate. Wouldn't you? Now the Pelosi Democrats just hand him everything he wants on a silver platter. YOUR RIGHTS AMONG THEM!

Sorry you'all, but the globalist run Dems are no better than their globalist run counterparts.

In essence, unless you write in Ron Paul we are screwed! I don't even think Ron Paul can help us now. It is probably time to ************************ weapons.
Boot
That seems dangerously close to advocating violence.
sky of mind
I think we have our first Libertarian troll.
seuss
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Friday, 15 August 2008, 8:22 am) *
I think we have our first Libertarian troll.

where do you get off calling him a troll? and what's the point of messing with them anyway? they're holding out hope for a Ron Paul write in campaign... that's even less likely than him getting the republican nomination.
sky of mind
QUOTE (seuss @ Friday, 15 August 2008, 10:59 am) *
where do you get off calling him a troll? and what's the point of messing with them anyway? they're holding out hope for a Ron Paul write in campaign... that's even less likely than him getting the republican nomination.



I expressed a possibility with terms of my choosing as is my right to do.
If you don't like it, send the MOD a PM.
YuvbinDuped
The cream off the top of "trillions" is measured in "billions." Greed on a vast scale is what happened. Dick Cheney happened:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKQz-xm0is
POAC
QUOTE (YuvbinDuped @ Thursday, 14 August 2008, 10:31 pm) *
In essence, unless you write in Ron Paul we are screwed! I don't even think Ron Paul can help us now. It is probably time to l*****************************.



The Golden Rules

1. There will be no racial, ethnic, gender based insults or any other personal discriminations.

2. There will be no posts meant to offend or hurt any other member, in a manner which is offensive or inflammatory.

3. Spamming is not permitted; please keep all your posts as constructive as possible.

4. Absolutely no instance of advocating violence or criminal acts will be tolerated. The post will be deleted, the offender will be banned, and law enforcement authorities may be contacted.
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (POAC @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 10:14 am) *
The Golden Rules

1. There will be no racial, ethnic, gender based insults or any other personal discriminations.

2. There will be no posts meant to offend or hurt any other member, in a manner which is offensive or inflammatory.

3. Spamming is not permitted; please keep all your posts as constructive as possible.

4. Absolutely no instance of advocating violence or criminal acts will be tolerated. The post will be deleted, the offender will be banned, and law enforcement authorities may be contacted.


Sorry. I do not advocate violence but only that of a trapped animal with no other logical alternative available to it.
POAC
QUOTE (YuvbinDuped @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 9:29 am) *
Sorry. I do not advocate violence but only that of a trapped animal with no other logical alternative available to it.


Well then gnaw off your leg and crawl back to your den until you can learn civil discourse and realize that there are indeed other logical alternatives.
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Friday, 15 August 2008, 3:17 pm) *
I expressed a possibility with terms of my choosing as is my right to do.
If you don't like it, send the MOD a PM.


But you don't seem to like it when the shoe is on the other foot?

You accuse me of not listening but, have you read Ron Pauls book, The Revolution: A Manifesto or watched the Constitution Class? How about reading Constitutional Chaos? Give me one to read and I'll do so, if I haven't already.

I realize Ron Paul cannot win, but it is his mission I appreciate. He said things that shook the MSM and globalists world on national tv only to be glossed over and ignored by his colleagues. For example, Doctor Paul is the only candidate that mentioned that we have killed over 600,000 Iraqis (at the time, it is now over a million) and that they DID NOT and were incapable of attacking us on 9-11. Not one candidate or media pundit questioned his remarks. This should be of concern to all. They could not question truth, only dismiss and trivialize it. I personally do not believe a million innocent lives lost to be a trivial matter.
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (POAC @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 10:33 am) *
Well then gnaw off your leg and crawl back to your den until you can learn civil discourse and realize that there are indeed other logical alternatives.



Interesting. An insult after an apology.

Where I am a great advocate of logical alternatives in some instances the only logical alternative is an eye for an eye.

What logical alternatives do you advocate to set America back on course?
POAC
QUOTE (YuvbinDuped @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 9:49 am) *
Interesting. An insult after an apology.

Where I am a great advocate of logical alternatives in some instances the only logical alternative is an eye for an eye.

What logical alternatives do you advocate to set America back on course?


I don't see how that was an insult, but whatever. Let me update the website and I'll get back to you.
POAC
What logical alternatives do you advocate to set America back on course?

1. Run for office. If you honestly believe that you are so enlightened and we've all been duped into watching shadows on the wall, it's your duty. It is your duty to your country and fellow Americans to lead us to the light. You say you can't win because you lack camera appeal. That's absurd. You don't need the "MSM" approval to become a State legislator. You claim to have stumped Feingold and your speech writing abilities are good enough to get you printed in the newspaper. Sounds like you are a natural. Basically, what I'm saying is put your money where your mouth is.

2. Donate to and work for specific candidates and not political parties.

3. Vote for the guy who raises the least money. They are the least bought and paid for ar will most likely be more inclined to serve the public interest.

4. Get active in your local party. Join the platform committee and start shaping the platform to better reflect the public interest.


Those are a few off of the top of my head.

sky of mind
QUOTE (YuvbinDuped @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 7:49 am) *
Interesting. An insult after an apology.



Your "apology" STILL advocated violence by making the statement about the dog in a trap.
This was pointed out by the MOD, but you failed to "hear" it.
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (POAC @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 11:51 am) *
What logical alternatives do you advocate to set America back on course?

1. Run for office. If you honestly believe that you are so enlightened and we've all been duped into watching shadows on the wall, it's your duty. It is your duty to your country and fellow Americans to lead us to the light. You say you can't win because you lack camera appeal. That's absurd. You don't need the "MSM" approval to become a State legislator. You claim to have stumped Feingold and your speech writing abilities are good enough to get you printed in the newspaper. Sounds like you are a natural. Basically, what I'm saying is put your money where your mouth is.

Cannot do so for legal reasons. I am litigating a major case at this time.

2. Donate to and work for specific candidates and not political parties.

I am very politically active and have supported my candidates both financially and via any media resources available.

3. Vote for the guy who raises the least money. They are the least bought and paid for ar will most likely be more inclined to serve the public interest.

I agree and vote out the incumbants.

4. Get active in your local party. Join the platform committee and start shaping the platform to better reflect the public interest.

No matter how active I get, third party candidates cannot easily overcome the obstacles that the Dems and Cons placed before them. They are almost completely locked out.

Those are a few off of the top of my head.

And they are good ones. I have found that it is next to impossible to get even a letter to the editor of any major newspapers published if it is not along the status quo. Our media is so controlled by the globalists that they don't want to bend any ears with messages of truth or other candidates except the chosen ones.
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Friday, 15 August 2008, 9:22 am) *
I think we have our first Libertarian troll.


Is that what you call everyone that does not agree with the sheep world paradigm?


4. repeating the same actions while hoping for or expecting a different result
sky of mind
QUOTE (POAC @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 8:51 am) *
What logical alternatives do you advocate to set America back on course?

1. Run for office. If you honestly believe that you are so enlightened and we've all been duped into watching shadows on the wall, it's your duty. It is your duty to your country and fellow Americans to lead us to the light. You say you can't win because you lack camera appeal. That's absurd. You don't need the "MSM" approval to become a State legislator. You claim to have stumped Feingold and your speech writing abilities are good enough to get you printed in the newspaper. Sounds like you are a natural. Basically, what I'm saying is put your money where your mouth is.

2. Donate to and work for specific candidates and not political parties.

3. Vote for the guy who raises the least money. They are the least bought and paid for ar will most likely be more inclined to serve the public interest.

4. Get active in your local party. Join the platform committee and start shaping the platform to better reflect the public interest.


Those are a few off of the top of my head.




To expand on that, "the system" includes you, and long as you ahve the patience to work within the rules of "the system". Unfortunately, from what I have seen here and ONLY based on what I have seen here, my quess is that you don't have what it takes to be that patient or persistant. You seem to be much more comfortable beating on your chest.
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 12:11 pm) *
To expand on that, "the system" includes you, and long as you ahve the patience to work within the rules of "the system". Unfortunately, from what I have seen here and ONLY based on what I have seen here, my quess is that you don't have what it takes to be that patient or persistant. You seem to be much more comfortable beating on your chest.



It appears you're doing most of the thumping here.

Who's rules? These guys?

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=154223

The constitution does not require, advocate or allow for free speech zones. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT! America IS a free speech zone.
sky of mind
QUOTE (YuvbinDuped @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 9:11 am) *
Is that what you call everyone that does not agree with the sheep world paradigm?


4. repeating the same actions while hoping for or expecting a different result




Just because i don't choose your actions, does not mean I'm following an old worn out path.
My chosen course is flexable and actually has some expectations of success.

YOUR only real alternative, is to stock up on ammo and survival food.
sky of mind
QUOTE (YuvbinDuped @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 9:44 am) *
It appears you're doing most of the thumping here.

Who's rules? These guys?

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=154223

The constitution does not require, advocate or allow for free speech zones. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT! America IS a free speech zone.




America is a free speech zone, but the POAC is private property and as such you are bound by the house rules.
No exceptions. You want free speech, start your own forum.
seuss
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 1:32 pm) *
America is a free speech zone, but the POAC is private property and as such you are bound by the house rules.
No exceptions. You want free speech, start your own forum.


Dude... what's wrong with you?
he's been informed of the rules, and hasn't broken them since! You make it seem like the board is run and populated by intolerant pricks. tone it down man... I really dislike it when you act like this. Why don't you tolerate other viewpoints? Anyone that wants to has the right to support ron paul, or feel as though the democrats are a useless bunch of corrupt beurocrats, just as you have the right not to. that doesn't mean you have the right to act like you run the place. As much as it seems as you want it to be, this isn't a Democratic party website. Maybe you should start your own forum, for people who think exactly the same way you do... It'll be a pretty lonely place.
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (seuss @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 4:11 pm) *
Dude... what's wrong with you?
he's been informed of the rules, and hasn't broken them since! You make it seem like the board is run and populated by intolerant pricks. tone it down man... I really dislike it when you act like this. Why don't you tolerate other viewpoints? Anyone that wants to has the right to support ron paul, or feel as though the democrats are a useless bunch of corrupt beurocrats, just as you have the right not to. that doesn't mean you have the right to act like you run the place. As much as it seems as you want it to be, this isn't a Democratic party website. Maybe you should start your own forum, for people who think exactly the same way you do... It'll be a pretty lonely place.


Dude. I was not referring to this board (as you are correct, they have the right to censor free speech if they so shall please), but rather the Democratic Convention and how they are violating the U.S. Constitution right our faces! Did you watch the newsfeed?
seuss
QUOTE (YuvbinDuped @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 6:16 pm) *
Dude. I was not referring to this board (as you are correct, they have the right to censor free speech if they so shall please), but rather the Democratic Convention and how they are violating the U.S. Constitution right our faces! Did you watch the newsfeed?

settle down there buddy... I quoted and responded to Sky, not you.
sky of mind
QUOTE (seuss @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 1:11 pm) *
Dude... what's wrong with you?
he's been informed of the rules, and hasn't broken them since! You make it seem like the board is run and populated by intolerant pricks. tone it down man... I really dislike it when you act like this. Why don't you tolerate other viewpoints? Anyone that wants to has the right to support ron paul, or feel as though the democrats are a useless bunch of corrupt beurocrats, just as you have the right not to. that doesn't mean you have the right to act like you run the place. As much as it seems as you want it to be, this isn't a Democratic party website. Maybe you should start your own forum, for people who think exactly the same way you do... It'll be a pretty lonely place.


And yet you felt it was OK to throw in YOUR two cents, while discounting mine?

What's wrong with you, dude?
Can you not see the sign that states this is a two way street?
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (seuss @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 8:04 pm) *
settle down there buddy... I quoted and responded to Sky, not you.


Sorry, my mistake. Sky has been giving me a lot of flack. He is extremely rigid in his beliefs and will not bend but expects me to do so. Anyone so convoluted in partisan paradigms cannot ever truly understand truth. My father was the same way. If Kennedy had run Republican my dad would probably not have voted for him. Thats about as stubborn as you can get, and illogical too!
Boot
Dupey, you act as if your the only one with credible information, but most seems to come from small publications with limited resources and obvious agendas, not good credible sources.

Despite all of their faults, major media outlets have the resources and ability to actually get first hand information, instead of trying to pass off obscure blogs and opinions as news.

Try and strike a balance between sources and opinions, or you'll just come off as another angry internet goon that no one will pay attention too.
sky of mind
QUOTE (YuvbinDuped @ Monday, 18 August 2008, 8:33 pm) *
Sorry, my mistake. Sky has been giving me a lot of flack. He is extremely rigid in his beliefs and will not bend but expects me to do so. Anyone so convoluted in partisan paradigms cannot ever truly understand truth. My father was the same way. If Kennedy had run Republican my dad would probably not have voted for him. Thats about as stubborn as you can get, and illogical too!



More assumptions based on what?
And you want to be taken as credible?
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Tuesday, 19 August 2008, 9:26 am) *
More assumptions based on what?
And you want to be taken as credible?



If Bush had run as a Democrat, would you have voted for him?
Rousseau
Why do I have that ole "Ronald Rutherford" type feeling here ? unsure.gif
YuvbinDuped
Here's one of many questions about 9-11-2001


First off, I am quite certain that if one is investing in any stock market in the world, one cannot do so "anonymously."

In regard to the "put' options placed on American and United Airlines leading up to 9-11, 2001 it was discovered that an individual had placed these puts on the stocks and made millions. Though this individual never claimed his money it seems aweful shady that this guy that seemed to have inside info from somewhere that those airlines would suddenly lose value to the extent that those puts would be lucrative. Even shadier is the fact that our government and their bogus 9-11 Commission report failed to mention this incident and question it intensely. Further, given that one could not trade anonymously, how come we have not been told who this individual is? Seems to be a pretty important individual to me and I would say very suspect.
YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (Boot @ Tuesday, 19 August 2008, 7:11 am) *
Dupey, you act as if your the only one with credible information, but most seems to come from small publications with limited resources and obvious agendas, not good credible sources.

Despite all of their faults, major media outlets have the resources and ability to actually get first hand information, instead of trying to pass off obscure blogs and opinions as news.

Try and strike a balance between sources and opinions, or you'll just come off as another angry internet goon that no one will pay attention too.



Oh yeah, the msm has really been doing a fine job of investigative reporting hasn't it? That must be why we are in Iraq and why Bush gets away with lie after lie. Are you sleeping? You want to talk obvious agendas? Geesh!

YuvbinDuped
QUOTE (Rousseau @ Tuesday, 19 August 2008, 9:42 am) *
Why do I have that ole "Ronald Rutherford" type feeling here ? unsure.gif


Maybe it's something you ate?
seuss
ok, lets not bicker, lets check out some new 9/11 stuff:


http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10528

QUOTE
The High-Fivers
More proof the Israelis were shadowing the 9/11 hijackers
by Justin Raimondo
It was the tail-end of a bleak November 2001: a pall of shocked numbness hung over the country, and a rising war hysteria had nearly everyone cowed. Americans were just beginning to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and focus on what had happened, and how to react. It was very early on the morning of the 23rd when, scanning the headlines, I came across a Washington Post story by John Mintz: "60 Israelis Detained on Tourist Visas Since Sept. 11." Odd, I thought, why go after the Israelis, probably the least likely suspects?

The subhead was even more intriguing: "Government Calls Several Cases 'of Special Interest,’ Meaning Related to Post-Attacks Investigation." Apparently organized groups of Israelis had been arrested, and "dozens" held without bond. Inquiries to the Justice Department had yielded this response:

"In several cases, such as those in Cleveland and St. Louis, INS officials testified in court hearings that they were 'of special interest to the government,’ a term that federal agents have used in many of the hundreds of cases involving mostly Muslim Arab men who have been detained around the country since the terrorist attacks.

"An INS official who requested anonymity said the agency will not comment on the Israelis. But he said the use of the term 'special interest’ means the case in question is 'related to the investigation of September 11th.’"

It wasn’t some anti-Semitic conspiracy crank sitting in his parents’ basement, or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who first linked Israeli nationals to the events of 9/11: it was the U.S. government, specifically its law enforcement arm.

This I found utterly astonishing, because it was clear to me, at that point, that there was a link, albeit one largely unknown in its specifics. Why else were the feds casting their nets around for Israelis rather than Arabs, Persians, and, yes, Muslims?

There was more. The original Post piece was updated: the number of detained Israelis had risen to 120. I had been following the story in this space, and noting its significance, in the weeks before Carl Cameron broadcast his famous four-part report on Fox News, which exposed the extensive Israeli spy network in this country and opened with this electric charge:

"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are – quote – 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, – quote – 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"

The story, as it developed in the months – and years – to come, sent me down an investigative path that has yet to reach its endpoint. What we know is this: in the months prior to 9/11, bands of Israelis posing as "art students" [.pdf] had carried out what seemed like a coordinated probing of U.S. government facilities, including locations not known to the public. A secret government report detailing the activities of the "art students" – and their background as highly trained in explosives and the art of telecommunications interception – was leaked to the media, and the story was again in the headlines. But not for long.

This is potentially one of the most important 9/11-related stories ever reported, and yet the number of serious investigative pieces done on it can hardly be counted on the fingers of one hand. Antiwar.com has been following this from the outset, and you can go here for a complete archive of my columns on the subject, plus mainstream media pieces.

Of particular interest is the coverage by The Forward, the oldest newspaper of the Jewish community in North America. They reported on one key aspect of the Israeli-9/11 connection: the story of the five employees of a moving van company apprehended hours after the twin towers were struck. They had been observed in Liberty State Park, New Jersey, overlooking the Hudson, with a clear view of the burning towers. A woman had seen them from the window of her apartment building overlooking the parking lot: they came out of a white van, and they were jumping up and down, high-fiving each other with obvious glee. Their mood, it could be said, was celebratory. They were also filming the towers as they burned, and taking still photos.

The woman called the cops, who put out a "be on the lookout" alert. I’ll let Christopher Ketcham, author of a blockbuster new report appearing in Counterpunch, tell the rest of the story:

"At 3:56 p.m., twenty-five minutes after the issuance of the FBI BOLO, officers with the East Rutherford Police Department stopped the commercial moving van through a trace on the plates. According to the police report, Officer Scott DeCarlo and Sgt. Dennis Rivelli approached the stopped van, demanding that the driver exit the vehicle. The driver, 23-year-old Sivan Kurzberg, refused and 'was asked several more times [but] appeared to be fumbling with a black leather fanny pouch type of bag’. With guns drawn, the police then 'physically removed’ Kurzberg, while four other men – two more men had apparently joined the group since the morning – were also removed from the van, handcuffed, placed on the grass median and read their Miranda rights. They had not been told the reasons for their arrest. Yet, according to DeCarlo’s report, 'this officer was told without question by the driver [Sivan Kurzberg], 'We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.’ Another of the five Israelis, again without prompting, told Officer DeCarlo – falsely – that 'we were on the West Side Highway in New York City during the incident.'"

This is, I believe, the most detailed account yet published of what actually happened that fateful day, and Ketcham clearly shows that the Israelis were certainly aware of why they had been stopped. The cops practically had to drag them out of the van at gunpoint, and it is surely suspicious that they immediately starting denying any role in "the incident." How did they know they weren’t being stopped for a traffic violation? No wonder they were held for 71 days, mostly in solitary confinement, and interrogated. Some repeatedly failed polygraph tests when questioned about possible surveillance activities. The FBI agents who interrogated them reportedly called them "the high-fivers," because of their odd behavior at Liberty State Park.

The Forward confirmed that the company they ostensibly worked for, Urban Moving Systems, of Weehawken, New Jersey, was in all likelihood a Mossad front. Dominik Suter, the owner, fled to Israel the day after a police raid on his office. The five detained Israelis were sent back to Israel, where they claimed to be innocent victims of harassment. Here they are on an Israeli talk show. Of course they don’t mention any of the above, or that they were found to have multiple passports in their possession, along with $4,700 stuffed in a sock and maps of New York City highlighted in certain spots. Ketcham quotes one local law enforcement official as saying


"It looked like they’re hooked in with this, it looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

Ketcham, utilizing the public record, news reports, and his own sources, has painted the clearest portrait yet of the "urban mover" Mossad cell, and how they shadowed the five hijackers who took over American Airlines flight 77, which struck the Pentagon to such devastating effect. Living, working, and socializing within a six-mile radius of Bergen County, these two groups circled each other until, on 9/11, as a dark pall fell over Manhattan and much of the rest of the world, one applauded the others’ handiwork.

Ketcham’s story of how the FBI investigation was scotched by high-ups ought to outrage every patriotic American citizen. He cites a source at ABC News – which covered this story on 20/20 in a treatment I consider a whitewash – as saying "They feel the higher echelons torpedoed the investigation into the Israeli New Jersey cell. Leads were not fully investigated."

The same source agrees with the general assessment of CIA officers, and intelligence experts such as James Bamford and Vincent Cannistraro, that Urban Moving Systems was a covert Israeli intelligence-gathering operation, most likely engaged in electronic interception and other means of spying on radical elements within Northern New Jersey’s Muslim milieu.

In the course of this, and given their geographical proximity, it is not beyond reason to posit that the Urban Movers were watching the future hijackers, listening to their phone conversations, reading their emails, and otherwise keeping fully apprised of their activities. What made the Israelis jump for joy, as one counterintelligence officer is said to have put it, is that "The Israelis felt that in some way their intelligence had worked out – i.e., they were celebrating their own acumen and ability as intelligence agents."

The story of how this line of investigation was suppressed, both in the law enforcement community and in the media, is a saga in itself. I know that Ketcham worked on this story long and hard, and had supposedly firm commitments from both Salon.com and The Nation to publish his work. Both projects were killed at the last minute, in one case an hour before it was scheduled to run. What’s particularly stupid, in the case of Salon, is that they ran his previous piece, on the "Israeli Art Student Mystery," years ago – and now refuse to follow up their own story.

As for why the government investigation into the Israeli connection was scotched, Ketcham cites a former CIA counter-terrorism officer: "There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House."


I have to tell you that it hasn’t been easy following this story over the years. I was told in the beginning, and in no uncertain terms, that this line of investigation is forbidden, that it’s "too hot to handle," and, implicitly, that the truth and the facts have to take second place to political correctness. To even mention this story, in certain quarters, is considered prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism. Case closed.

In spite of a determined effort on the part of some to redefine anti-Semitism to constrain critics of Israeli government actions, there is an equally determined pushback – a real movement to treat Israel as a nation like any other. That is, as a nation with its own interests, which, if truth be told, it pursues aggressively, and not only in the occupied territories and Lebanon, but also right here in the U.S. The story of Israel’s underground army in America – and its foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks – is based on facts, not fantasies, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism – and everything to do with establishing the full context of the worst terrorist attack in our history.

9/11 was the opening shot of a battle we are still fighting to this day, as our soldiers fall in Iraq, and the hints of a new front in our endless "war on terrorism" – Iran – are hardly subtle. That signal event launched the war hysteria that has only lately begun to peter out.

One of the major reasons why the public has turned against the Iraq war has been the revelation that the "intelligence" we acquired about Iraq’s alleged "weapons of mass destruction" was manipulated, cherry-picked, and outright falsified in order to make the case for the invasion. If it turns out that the Israelis really did know – that they picked up "chatter" from the groups they were watching, and gained fairly detailed knowledge of the hijackers’ plans – it will alter how we think about 9/11, and change our perception of the perpetual war that ensued.

Go here to order the Ketcham piece, which is not yet online. You can only get it on dead-tree, but, believe me, it’s worth it. [Editor's note: Ketcham's piece is now online.]

And, while you’re doling out cash, remember the Antiwar.com fundraising drive is going into high gear. I won’t tout our fearlessness in covering this controversial story all these years, because the record speaks for itself, and far more eloquently than any sales pitch. In a era when the "mainstream" media has failed, and failed miserably, Antiwar.com isn’t a luxury – it’s a necessity. You know you ought to contribute today – so, go ahead, do it.

~ Justin Raimondo


sky of mind
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_...10UITpfPyKs0NUE


Feds: Fires took down building next to twin towers
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 15 minutes ago - 8.21.8



GAITHERSBURG, Md. - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.

Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.

"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

A spokeswoman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokeswoman Dara McQuillen.

In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."
seuss
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Thursday, 21 August 2008, 3:03 pm) *
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_...10UITpfPyKs0NUE


Feds: Fires took down building next to twin towers
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 15 minutes ago - 8.21.8



GAITHERSBURG, Md. - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.

Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.

"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

A spokeswoman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokeswoman Dara McQuillen.

In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."



ummm... how do I say this nicely...

oh! I've got it!

BULLsh*t!!!
seuss
QUOTE
the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.


Wouldn't that mean that the other two, which fell first, weren't brought down by the flaming jet fuel? at least they got that inference right.
sky of mind
QUOTE (seuss @ Thursday, 21 August 2008, 12:12 pm) *
ummm... how do I say this nicely...

oh! I've got it!

BULLsh*t!!!




I purposely did not post any personal opinion on the piece.
However, you're a Truther, and I doubt you would accept any explination other than what would prove a conspiracy.
seuss
I just saw CNN carrying this on their ticker... why the hell would they want to bring this up again?

I'm not going to go bring up videos that were already posted here, but:
QUOTE
A spokeswoman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokeswoman Dara McQuillen.


Larry Silverstien has admitted on national TV that he said they should demolish Biulding seven. As he gained huge quantities of money from the collapses, I'm not surprised he's happy with this new pack of lies.
karen
Hi guy's! Thought you might be interested in this little titbit...

Significant New Information Details CIA Criminal Culpability in Allowing the 9/11 Attacks! [AKA LET it happen on purpose!]

To: STATE EDITORS

Contact: Kyle Hence, kylehence@earthlink.net or Robert Schopmeyer, schop@earthlink.net, both for Palo Alto Publishing

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Palo Alto Publishing will hold a press conference on September 11, 2008, at 9 AM at the National Press Club at 529 14th St. NW, Washington D.C., to detail new information revealed since the release of the 9/11 Commission Report. Entirely sourced from government reports, court documents, and the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, this analysis, never before fully detailed, shows that CIA officers, working through liaisons at FBI Headquarters, had repeatedly and criminally obstructed investigations that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

This book details the numerous times the CIA interacted with the FBI. In particular, the times lead FBI Cole investigator, Ali Soufan, made several official requests to the CIA: one through FBI Director Freeh, asking for any information the CIA had on an al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur and on Khallad Bin Attash, (at that time thought to be mastermind on the Cole bombing).

Despite the fact that the CIA did indeed have this information, they either denied its existence or refused to respond to Soufan's requests. The CIA withheld material information from an ongoing FBI investigation, which was a crime, and not due to the fact that "the CIA did not talk to the FBI", as suggested by the 9/11 Commission report.

In July 2001, emails between high-level CIA managers and CIA officers, entered into evidence in the Moussaoui trial, indicated that Mihdhar was going to take part in the next big al Qaeda attack. When these CIA officers requested permission to transfer this information to the FBI, they were denied.
Yet, at almost the same time, CIA Director Tenet was holding meetings at the White House describing a huge al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US.

On August 22, 2001, when the CIA discovered that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were in the US, the CIA knew they were here to take part in a huge al Qaeda attack. Yet, the CIA, working with FBI IOS agents at FBI HQ, sabotaged the last chance FBI Cole investigators would have to investigate Mihdhar and prevent the attacks on 9/11. The CIA concealed the photograph of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur that connected Mihdhar to the planning of the Cole bombing. FBI HQ agents also concealed the fact that they had received the NSA release from the NSA caveats the very day they told the FBI Cole investigators they were forbidden from investigating Mihdhar, due to NSA caveats. FBI HQ agents then fabricated a NSLU ruling, and told the FBI Cole investigators that the NSLU had ruled they were not allowed to be part of any investigation for Mihdhar when in fact the NSLU attorneys had ruled just the opposite, and stated to FBI IG investigators that the Cole investigators could have been part of the investigation for Mihdhar, since the NSA information had no FISA component. [9/11 Commission report, Footnote 81, p 581]

This new information shows that almost 3000 innocent people in the US paid, with their lives, for the actions at the CIA and FBI HQ, actions that should have been uncovered by the 9/11 Commission, using the very same new information, easily obtainable with their subpoena powers.

This criminal activity was carried out by individuals at the CIA Bin Laden unit, the CIA Yemen station, high level managers at the CIA, who prevented the transfer of information regarding the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI investigators, the FBI Bin laden unit, the FBI RFU and even by the Director of the FBI.


All of this new information is detailed in "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" at www.eventson911.com by Robert Schopmeyer, owner of an EDA software company in Silicon Valley.

SOURCE Palo Alto Publishing

-0-

Link
sky of mind
But, did the CIA/FBI work of their own volition? Or were they under someone's employ?
I have now long said I felt it WAS a terrorists attack and terrorists brought down the towers, but that this administration knew something was up and let it happen.

The subsequent cover up is not only to protect the administration that let it happen, but also the US intelligence community that could be shown to be criminally culpable. That would mean several thousand spooks in prison!
The administration could not have done this alone, or by simply not acting on credible NIE's. They had to have help.
seuss
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Wednesday, 10 September 2008, 8:31 am) *
But, did the CIA/FBI work of their own volition? Or were they under someone's employ?
I have now long said I felt it WAS a terrorists attack and terrorists brought down the towers, but that this administration knew something was up and let it happen.

The subsequent cover up is not only to protect the administration that let it happen, but also the US intelligence community that could be shown to be criminally culpable. That would mean several thousand spooks in prison!
The administration could not have done this alone, or by simply not acting on credible NIE's. They had to have help.

Bin Laden was trained by the CIA... Do they ever leave an asset alone?
They're not supposed to act within the united states, but they can quietly suggest that one of their assets act within the US, particularly during a "training exercise" at NORAD.
If this happened, its hard to imagine that Cheney or HW bush would have had no idea, considering it was Cheney's order for the excercise, and HW has ties to both the CIA and the Bin Ladens.
sky of mind
QUOTE (seuss @ Wednesday, 10 September 2008, 7:19 am) *
Bin Laden was trained by the CIA... Do they ever leave an asset alone?

He was given training, but was never trained to be a spook.

They're not supposed to act within the united states, but they can quietly suggest that one of their assets act within the US, particularly during a "training exercise" at NORAD.

The FBI works domestic, the CIA works international. There is nothing that says that can't communicate with each other, or that both can't be manipulated by a thord party, such as the administration for whom they work.

If this happened, its hard to imagine that Cheney or HW bush would have had no idea, considering it was Cheney's order for the excercise, and HW has ties to both the CIA and the Bin Ladens.

I'm sure they knew something was up, but doubt that knew many if any specifics.

seuss
QUOTE
He was given training, but was never trained to be a spook.

first of all, how do you know?
second, that's why I said "asset" instead of "agent"
sky of mind
QUOTE (seuss @ Wednesday, 10 September 2008, 9:15 am) *
first of all, how do you know?

I don't, but how do YOU know?

second, that's why I said "asset" instead of "agent"

Again, how do YOU know? The CIA has trained thousands, but there's only one Osama.
Training on how to use a stinger, doesn't really count does it?

seuss
well, first, fox said it isn't true, so it must be.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html


and then this article, which is jam-packed with links to supportive documents, showing that it went a little beyond training on launching a stinger. This all affirms the memories of numerous other sources I've read through the years, but as I don't have a photographic memory, I can't cite them:

http://www.futurepower.net/paz/cia_trained_bin_laden.htm
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden and other Arabs in the techniques of terrorism.



Most Americans have no idea of the extent of the activities of the secret agencies of the U.S. government. For example, the 1998 MSNBC article, Bin Laden comes home to roost. [msnbc.com] says that Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA. Osama bin Laden was linked to the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, on February 26, 1993, and is assumed to be the leader behind the second bombing.

In a report called Osama Bin Laden: How the U.S. Helped Midwife a Terrorist [public-i.org], the Center for Public Integrity [publicintegrity.org] provides excerpts from the book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. The author, Ahmed Rashid, discusses CIA involvement in Afghanistan in more detail. The book was published by Yale University Press in 2000. The ISBN number of the paperback is 0-300-08902-3. It costs $14.95

Jane's, a company solely devoted to providing news about military events throughout the world, published an article on September 14, 2001 that provides another explanation of CIA involvement: Why? An attempt to explain the unexplainable [janes.com]. The article says,

The trainers [in terrorism] were mainly from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, who learnt their craft from American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various U.S. training establishments. Mass training of Afghan mujahideen was subsequently conducted by the Pakistan Army...

Note that both this article and the one linked below called Blowback Chronicles say that Arabs were brought to the U.S. for training in terrorism.

About four minutes into the September 18, 2001 edition of the NBC TV show, "Today", in the U.S., an expert who spoke on the show said that the CIA chose the Taliban to lead Afghanistan when the Soviets left the country. There was no discussion of the fact that a secret agency of the U.S. government chose the form of government of another country. The Taliban government is now hostile to the United States, and is supporting Osama Bin Laden.

The CIA has engaged in every activity that is considered terrorism. For example, see this quote from the 1979 Atlantic Monthly story, Inside the Department of Dirty Tricks [theatlantic.com]:

"We're not in the Boy Scouts", Richard Helms was fond of saying when he ran the Central Intelligence Agency. He was correct, of course. Boy Scouts do not ordinarily bribe foreign politicians, invade other countries with secret armies, spread lies, conduct medical experiments, build stocks of poison, pass machine guns to people who plan to turn them on their leaders, or plot to kill men such as Lumumba or Castro or others who displeased Washington. The CIA did these things, and more, over a long span of years.

(If you are not a citizen of the U.S., you may not know that the "CIA" is a secret agency of the U.S. government called the "Central Intelligence Agency". The Boy Scouts fact page [bsa.scouting.org] explains that the Boy Scouts of America [bsa.scouting.org] is an organization that helps young boys become responsible young men. The organization has a very good reputation for encouraging moral behavior. When the former head of the CIA said that the CIA was "not in the Boy Scouts", he was saying that the CIA does things moral people would not do. There is also an organization in the U.S. called the Girl Scouts.)

On September 15, 2001, The Guardian [guardian.co.uk], one of the largest newspapers in England, published a review of books about U.S. government involvement with Afghanistan, called Blowback Chronicles [guardian.co.uk]. Here are some quotes:

"Delighted by his impeccable Saudi credentials, the CIA gave Osama free rein in Afghanistan, as did Pakistan's intelligence generals."

Bin Laden and a man named Mustafa Chalaby, who ran a jihad refugee centre in Brooklyn [New York, U.S.A.], were both protégés of Abdullah Azzam. A formative influence on bin Laden, the charismatic Azzam was killed in a car-bomb in 1987: according to some rumours he was killed by the CIA. Others claim he was himself a CIA agent.

At the Farm and other secret camps, young Afghans and Arab nationals from countries such as Egypt and Jordan learned strategic sabotage skills. Passed down to the younger jihad generation which filled the ranks of the Bin Laden organisation, these skills would come back to haunt the United States. [The "Farm" is a commonly used name for the CIA's training center in Virginia, U.S.A.]

This is a remarkable statement. This and other sources say the CIA brought Arabs to the U.S. and trained them to be terrorists.

Here is another quote:

[U.S. President George W. Bush is] the son of a man with close ties to the oil company Unocal, which wanted to put a pipeline across Afghanistan. Among their partners in the venture were BP and the Saudi royal family.

The pipeline across Afghanistan [unocal.com] was cancelled due to the Taliban government there. This is an official Unocal document. (If you view the link, do a search for the word "route", then find the route on a map of Afghanistan [afghana.com]. Or, see this alternative map [pathfinder.com].) On February 12, 1998, the vice president of Unocal provided testimony [house.gov] about this to the U.S. House of Representatives. Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca said, in part, "CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place." This is an official U.S. government document, from a U.S. government web site. BP is the large oil company British Petroleum.

Unocal was called "ethically bankrupt" for its scheme to charge royalties on automobile fuel sold in the U.S., without actually providing anything new. See the article, It's the Regs, Stupid! [nationalreview.com]

Before George Bush senior was elected president, he was head of the CIA.

(If you are not a U.S. citizen, you may not know that the father of the present President of the U.S. is George Bush, senior. He also was elected President of the United States.)

There have often been books, and articles in magazines and newspapers, that indicate that the secret agencies consider themselves above the public parts of the U.S. government. Here is another quote from Blowback Chronicles [guardian.co.uk]:

Hindered by Congressional interference, the CIA covertly sought Mrs. Thatcher's help - in one incident, during the Falklands war, they curried favour by handing over an illegal supply of Stinger missiles to British officials in a Washington car park.

If seems reasonable to say that few U.S. citizens realize the extent to which secrecy has corrupted the U.S. government.

The CIA [cia.gov] is a huge secret U.S. government organization that has two main parts. The About the CIA [cia.gov] page explains that the Directorate of Intelligence is the analytical branch of the CIA. This branch provides information to the U.S. government. (There seems to be no evidence that there have been problems caused only by collection of information.)

It is the CIA's Directorate of Operations that advances secret purposes. The job description is something like this: You will often be away from home. Your job may be very dangerous. You will be allowed and even encouraged to do things that are illegal. You may sometimes arrange the killing of foreign leaders.

It is easy to imagine what sort of person is attracted to that kind of job.

"Blowback" is a word invented by the CIA to refer to situations in which people, whom the CIA trained in violence and sneakiness, turn against the United States. Blowback is not necessarily viewed by the CIA as a terrible thing, since more trouble for the U.S. means more money for the CIA. However, for the U.S. citizen, "blowback" is the equivalent of the Biblical saying, "You harvest what you plant."
sky of mind
I'm not doubting or dismissing the possibility that Osama received advanced training from the CIA.
I also doubt that Osana was the only one, far from it. The question is, what training did he receive and is the CIA responsible for the terrorist attack on the towers? Was the CIA training responsible for that attack, or would it have happened anyway?

The point is and was that 9/11 was allowed to happen and that there is still no evidence beyond very thin circumstantial that the towers came down by any other means than by a terrorist attack.

The evidence is greater that in fact it was allowed to happen. As was the point of this article.


Making the connection that the CIA had any sort of connection to the terrorist attack on the towers because they gave Osama insurgency training is making one of those thin circumctance statements.
seuss
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Wednesday, 10 September 2008, 3:02 pm) *
I'm not doubting or dismissing the possibility that Osama received advanced training from the CIA.
I also doubt that Osana was the only one, far from it. The question is, what training did he receive and is the CIA responsible for the terrorist attack on the towers? Was the CIA training responsible for that attack, or would it have happened anyway?

The point is and was that 9/11 was allowed to happen and that there is still no evidence beyond very thin circumstantial that the towers came down by any other means than by a terrorist attack.

The evidence is greater that in fact it was allowed to happen. As was the point of this article.


Making the connection that the CIA had any sort of connection to the terrorist attack on the towers because they gave Osama insurgency training is making one of those thin circumctance statements.


I'm not trying to argue against you on the point of the article. I'm quite happy that you aknowledge the complicity of the government in it's occurance. I'm just trying to point out, that with as much history that members and close associates of the administration have had with the Saudi Royal goverment, Osama Bin Laden, the CIA and Saddam Hussein in the past, along with the obvious points made in the article you've posted, that it's difficult for me to imagine that there wasn't a coordinated effort on numerous fronts to bring about a US military presence in the middle east through the use of well established contacts on all fronts. While we disagree on "there is still no evidence beyond very thin circumstantial that the towers came down by any other means than by a terrorist attack," we mostly agree.
If a terrorist attack was allowed to happen, wouldn't that make it a false flag operation, and not a terrorist attack?

I ask you, considering the evidence that you, yourself, have presented, is it beyond the scope of your belief that some people within the united states government may have wanted the towers to come down, that it was allowed to happen, and seeing as how the buildings were structurally created to withstand the force of a collision of a jet liner, that they may have decided that they'd need a little help to come down? Especially if their buddy silverstien would need them to do so to collect a few billion dollars?

sky of mind
I pretty much agree, until you accept circumstantial evidence as poingt fact, evidence, which is just isn't

A thing can seem dirty as hell, but what a thing seems like, is not enough,
no more than to assume an extreme left wing person is a communist.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.