TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 [113] 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
So wait, now that picture is of one of the inner rings of the Pentagon? So there's parking in the interior courtyards? Wow, must take some fancy driving to get cars in there.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X You said that it "slid" into the Pentagon. So why were there no marks on the lawn before they came in and layed down that heavy layer of dirt? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt damn, that video is a smoking gun IMO. No broken windows on the building...No wing marks..no tail marks..an "entrance" hole smaller than the cockpit...a pristine lawn in front of the impact zone when it should have been SHREDDED by engine turbulence on the way down.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dcougar99 the what the fuk did this to the 3rd inner ring (C)??? something had the mass now didnt it!?!?   |
Re: The rumors of my dissappearance are just that, rumors
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 They refuse to use those inquisitive axions and neurons that make their feeble minds work to find what Sherlock Holmes had said �When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I thought this page was kind of funny (in some sort of demented way) http://killtown.911review.org/pentalawn.html |
http://www.americanfreepress.net/ht..._solved118.html
ITALIAN SAYS 9-11 SOLVED
It�s common knowledge, he reveals, CIA, Mossad behind terror attacks
rss202
By the Staff of American Free Press
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy�s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:
�All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe�know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part � in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.�
Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.
Cossiga�s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and �80s. Gladio�s specialty was to carry out what they termed �false flag� operations�terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, �You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force � the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.�
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcherWebster Tarpley saying �The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and
flight security personnel.�
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga�s assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America�s propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.
(Issue #52, December 24, 2007)
______________________________
And I'm of course to assume that he's also a tinhatter? Heh. When are you going to concede that you're relying on bullshit information and ignoring the painfully obvious? I'm not addressing anyone in particular, you're all the same, in a disappointing way. It's like staring at a stereogram and not seeing the sailboat.. a failure.
The fact that the President lied about his first knowledge of the planes hitting the building is so damning, coupled by the fact that when caught off guard about whether or not he knew of the attacks prior to 9-11 he fell apart and could barely utter a complete sentence.
$40,000,000 was spent investigating Bill Clinton. $600,000 has been spent on the 9-11 Attack..wow. Really? That's like 15 minutes of war in Iraq.
Not to mention the Commission investigating the whole ordeal was filled with crooked lawyers, oil company directors, ex military officers and ex-senators.
doesn't it make you think "Hey, something's up!" When BBC reports that Building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did?
Talk about denial coupled with a false sense of patriotism.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} And I'm of course to assume that he's also a tinhatter? Heh. When are you going to concede that you're relying on bullshit information and ignoring the painfully obvious? I'm not addressing anyone in particular, you're all the same, in a disappointing way. It's like staring at a stereogram and not seeing the sailboat.. a failure. |
| quote: |
"In Brief: This claim is based on a story published in an Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera. But has the former Italian president really joined the truth movement? Not according to this translation: �As I�ve been told, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow (interview appeared on 30 november 07) the most important chain of newspaper of our country should give the proof, with an exceptional scoop, that the video (which in reality is an audio tape, NdR) in which appear Osama, leader of �the great and powerful movement of islamic revenge Al Quaeda� - God bless him! - and in which are formulated threats to our ex president Berlusconi, is nothing more than a fake realized inside Mediaset studios (the huge television group owned by Berlusconi) in Milan and sent to arabic television Al Jazeera. The trap was organized to create solidarity for Berlusconi, which is having lot of problem related for the tangle between RAI and Mediaset. From sources near to Palazzo Chigi, the nevralgic center of italian intelligence, we know that the video is fake because Osama admits that he was the mind behind the attacks against the twin towers, while all the democratic parties in Europe and USA know very well that the attack was organised by CIA and Mossad, whit the help of sionistic world, just to accuse arab countries and induce occident to intervein both in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why nobody in parlament gave solidarity to Berlusconi, which is the author of the fake video" " It's apparent that Cossiga was being sarcastic about the perceived tendency of the fevered Italian Left to blame everything on Berlusconi, Americans and so-called "Zionist" bogeymen. But, Cossiga himself admits he is not a conspiracy theorist, see this article published in the Italian newspaper La Stampa. He affirms, "I refuse the conspiracy theory, which is a smart and sometimes sincere contrafaction of reality caused by the fear of that (reality)". And also: "Rembering how "open" american society is, I think it's very unlikely, I may say impossible, that 9/11 was an inside job". The conclusions are apparent and obvious: (1) Francesco Cossiga has a sense of humor (2) He like ourselves, enjoys taking pokes at unhinged, nutbar conspiracy cranks (3) Francesco Cossiga by his own empathic admission, definitely does not believe 9/11 was that tiresome cliche, "an inside job" (4) The hoax peddled by the Alex Jones front [site] is a deliberate, Yellow Journalistic, sensationalistic, Tabloid fabrication (5) Truther cultists are daft, lack a sense of humor; are ignorant and have no idea when they are being sent up, scorned, ridiculed and mocked (6) Ignorant conspiracy devotees frequently poleaxe themselves by not fact-checking and posting articles which, far from supporting their crazy conspiracy schemes, make fun of or, completely demolish their irrational fantasies |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN LOL. what is it with you guys on a constant rinse-repeat cycle? this has been posted numerous times. cossiga wasn't saying what you're trying to make it sound like he said. he is a rightwing conservative politician and he was mocking the italian centre left (in his support of the current administration) and throwing out those comments in mockery. i wish you guys would bother to research outside the BS tinfoil hat sites you swallow as gospel. if you'll notice, there isn't a single non-truther site that repeats this, because the truthers are the only ones that don't understand context. and in any case, his opinion is irrelevant. lots of people believe in god, doesn't make them right. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} And Building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it happened? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Why did the President lie? |
Re: The rumors of my dissappearance are just that, rumors
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 it's been a while but the more things change the more they stay the same. Like this post. I thought this thing was gonna die or be locked but it hasn't. Sure there a gnomes and trolls that wish it to be closed for only they can be the sheep that listens to the official story. They refuse to use those inquisitive axions and neurons that make their feeble minds work to find what Sherlock Holmes had said �When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.� The poll numbers don't lie either. Thanks to those for or against the official story that keep this post and it's poll alive. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} mmmhmm. Responding to one point doesn't make you right, either. And Building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it happened? Why did the President lie? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN seriously, this rates right up there with the dumbest theories going around. truth is the first casualty of war. instead of asking such ridiculous questions, id prefer it if you could explain why the impossibly vast conspiracy was told to the BBC? the BBC has come out and said they made a mistake. any other conclusion is fanciful nonsense. edit: EVERYONE knew WTC7 was coming down. it had been on fire for about 6 hours at that stage, was groaning and was visibly deformed. |
| quote: |
he's a politician? he was in damage control? he's not very smart? take your pick! nobody ever said george wasn't a blight on the office of the president. |
This is so futile. Why bother with these fucks?
especially for you BSE, and your obvious cossiga bullshit.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
| quote: |
| REPORTER: "Barry Jennings, you were on the 8th floor. You work for the City Housing Department. Explain to me the moment of impact." BARRY JENNINGS: "Well, me and Mr. Hess, the corporation counsel were on the 23rd floor. I told him, �We gotta get out of here.� We started walking down the stairs. We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion. Blew us back into the 8th floor, and I turned to Hess. I said, �this is it; we�re dead. We�re not gonna make it out of here.� I took a fire extinguisher and I bust the window out. That�s when this gentleman here heard my cries for help. This gentleman right here. And he kept saying, �Stand by. Somebody�s coming to get you.� They couldn�t get to us for an hour because they couldn�t find us." REPORTER: "You thought that was it." JENNINGS: "I thought we were dead. I thought that was it. I started praying to Allah. I said, �That�s it; we�re gone.�" Transcript: http://is124.ce.psu.edu/Edcomm/WITNweb/2423/script.html More: http://www.historycommons.org/entit...arry_jennings_1 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} This is so futile. Why bother with these fucks? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z For real dude. It's just a waste of your time and theirs. |
| quote: |
| Hess made this statement while being interviewed by Frank Ucciardo of UPN 9 News "on Broadway about a block from City Hall," almost a half mile from WTC 7. This interview began before noon, most likely at 11:34. The conclusion that it began at 11:34 is based on evidence derived from a DVD containing UPN 9 programs from that morning, in which the Hess interview begins at the 57-minute mark. According to a note on the DVD itself, its video began at 10:37 AM, which would mean that the Hess interview began at 11:34. It is possible, however, that the video might have actually started at 11:00: At the 111-minute mark, the UPN 9 program switched to live coverage by CNN of a Taliban news conference, and the only reference we have been able to find to this coverage indicates that it began at 12:51.3 This would mean that the video began at 11:00 and the Hess interview, therefore, at 11:57. Nevertheless, whether the earlier or the later starting time is correct, UPN 9 News began interviewing Michael Hess before noon. http://www.911truth.org/article.php...080918031403456 |
So you are back on WTC7 again? Are you people serious? Either you are the biggest trolls in the history of the internet or you really are suffering from a serious mental problem.
That said, I'm officially retiring from this thread. As the old saying goes, you can't cure stupid, and all the truther and no-planer posts in this thread prove that. If you guys want to continue to post in this thread so it serves as a lasting monument to your stupidity then keep at it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by XaNaX So you are back on WTC7 again? Are you people serious? Either you are the biggest trolls in the history of the internet or you really are suffering from a serious mental problem. That said, I'm officially retiring from this thread. As the old saying goes, you can't cure stupid, and all the truther and no-planer posts in this thread prove that. If you guys want to continue to post in this thread so it serves as a lasting monument to your stupidity then keep at it. |
I think Dr. Griffin has made a few good points here
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005
In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.
Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.
One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.
Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's fa�ade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds�-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks�-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)
http://www.911truth.org/article.php...050523112738404
http://www.stj911.com/
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X You can't cure stupid, you're right, but you can sure as heck shine the light of truth on their idiotic, morally reprehensible, and possibly treasonous ways. |
Possible explosive devices found, a van or a truck full of explosives pulled over, witnesses that heard multiple explosions, explosions coming from the basement and the street level, Bush talking about the explosives having been planted high enough to prevent people from escaping, etc. How convenient for the perpetrators that you don't hear about any of that in the official theory.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.