Originally posted by Trancer-X
You do know what a gag order is don't you?
For some odd reason the FBI was busy serving people with them after the 9/11 attacks. I wonder why? ;)
WTF are you talking about? Gag orders? What about them? Oh oh, I can't wait to hear how this ties into the holy conspiracy dogma... :eek: :eek:
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
WTF are you talking about? Gag orders? What about them? Oh oh, I can't wait to hear how this ties into the holy conspiracy dogma... :eek: :eek:
Yeah, gag orders. You know, the kind that keep people from talking under penalty of law?
Ashcroft may face prison
over 9/11 cover-up,
says Daniel Ellsberg
by Fintan Dunne, Editor
BreakForNews.com,
15th June, 2004
Two whistleblowers stood side by side before a courthouse in Washington, D.C. on Monday. Veteran of the Pentagon Papers scandal, Daniel Ellsberg was backing a protest by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, against a court gag order which has silenced her revelations about the September 11th, 2001 attacks.
The whistleblower pair were protesting yet another delay by Judge Reggie Walton of the District Court of Columbia in determining whether Edmonds' closed session testimony to Congressional inquiries can be declared state secrets by U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft.
In a statement, Edmonds called Ashcroft's legal moves anti-freedom of speech and anti-due process.
Ellsberg's common cause with Edmonds is founded on his own battle to make public a top secret study of US decision-making in Vietnam, known as the Pentagon Papers.
In an exclusive interview with BreakForNews.com he said that Ashcroft's legal actions against Edmonds were: "clearly intended to keep her from bringing out in public information that could lead.... to criminal indictments and possible convictions of major political figures."
Ellsberg says that if Edmonds' allegations are confirmed, the current Attorney General could be judged obstructive and share the fate of A.G. John Mitchell --who in Ellsberg v. Mitchell famously tried to squelch Ellsberg's 1971 revelations, and served prison time over the affair.
"John Ashcroft may well sleep eventually in the same cell as John Mitchell," Ellsberg said.
In a recent interview with BreakFornews.com, Sibel Edmonds alleged that the US State Department had blocked investigations showing links between criminal drug trafficking networks and the terror attacks on 9/11.
"Certain investigations were being quashed, let's say per State Department's request, because it would have affected certain foreign relations [or] affected certain business relations with foreign organizations," she said. (Interview - 4:00 min.)
Enlarge
Edmonds also indicated that the FBI's intelligence translation service had been penetrated by a criminal, semi-legitimate intelligence group --not linked to any government. Her measured words hinted at politically explosive connections between non-terrorist criminal networks and the 9/11 attacks.
Since October, 2002 Edmonds has been bound by provisional gag order while awaiting an opportunity for a full hearing and a definitive ruling. The recent moves in the case arose from a government bid to exclude her testimony from a class action lawsuit by families of 9/11 victims.
Judge Walton had scheduled Monday as the first ever hearing at which Edmonds was to be allowed counter the state secret privilege assertion by Ashcroft. But after an in camera presentation last week by the government side, he called off the hearing. Unofficial reports say a new date may be set for early July.
Talk of US government interference in 9/11 investigations, and the considerable volume of online analysis discounting the official conspiracy theory, resonate with Ellsberg.
"I'm not an expert on all this," he admits. "But I am increasingly open to the explanation that people in the administration did see this coming... and may have indeed reduced some obstacles.., or opened the door, in effect. I haven't been absolutely convinced on that, but it does seem to me to be an open question that deserves investigation."
"Now beyond that... it seems to me quite plausible that --plausible, that's all I'd say-- that Pakistan was quite involved in this, and that many Saudis were well informed on this," says Ellsberg.
"And to say that. To say Pakistan-- is to me, to say C.I.A. Because I think the relations between the Pakistan I.S.I. [intelligence service] and CIA were very close from the beginning. And it's hard to say that the I.S.I knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of."
"So if you say, do I accept confidently, and do I rely on the official interpretation? Certainly not. But, I wouldn't say that I have been yet been thoroughly convinced by any alternative."
"I can add one thing though -from my own experience, that's relevant."
"Is it possible... that an American president could have... welcomed an attack on America that he would interpret [as] justifying an invasion of another country?"
"Well, that's more than possible, that happened --under a president that I served. Lyndon Johnson did put American destroyers in harms way, deliberately provoking an attack.. in the Tonkin Gulf. Not only in August of '64, but in February of '65. ...There was an attack on August 2nd, and that was not unwelcome to the United States at that point."
Fireman Admits Again: 9-11 Inside Job
by Victor Thorn
On the morning of September 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac, Jr. admitted yet again that 9-11 was an inside job. In fact, here is his exact quote to Lisa Guliani and myself: “I know 9-11 was an inside job, the police know it’s an inside job, and the firemen know it too.”
Think about the ramifications of this statement. One of New York’s own firefighters revealed publicly that 9-11 wasn’t the work of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated, and executed by elements within our own government. Isaacs also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, “We all have to be very careful about how we handle it.”
Preeminent researcher Jim Marrs (Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies) also quotes author Randy Lavello, who wrote the following about Paul Isaac, Jr.: “New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. Many other firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings,’ he said, ‘but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact.’ Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD’s antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. ‘There were definitely bombs in those buildings,’ Isaac added.”
The above information was corroborated by Nico Haupt in the November 1, 2004 edition of 911 Skeptics where he wrote, “[Isaac] explained to me that if the building had 'pancaked' as it's been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks.”
Adding further weight to this argument is Greg Szymanski’s July 21, 2005 article entitled Former Auxiliary NY Fireman Is 'A One-Man Investigative Team' When It Comes To Finding The Truth About 9/11 where the following quote appears: “When Isaac first watched the towers collapse from a block away, he said they ‘strangely came down like a house of cards, in their own footprints’ in what he called a perfect demolition job.”
Isaac also reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told me during our protest at Ground Zero on September 11, 2005 --- that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade Center towers. Isaac told Szymanski in the above-mentioned article, “I heard some crazy things over my radio in those days, things I can’t repeat on the phone.”
Also, Isaac directly addressed the gag order placed on firemen and police officers in Szymanski’s article:
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11.
There is certainly more information of this nature related to Mr. Isaac on the Internet, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene (i.e. William Rodriguez) saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought to their knees not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition. Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state, and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.
Last but not least, researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also in attendance at the WTC 'open grave site' on the afternoon of September 11, 2005, wrote the following on APFN: "I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth! Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 911 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing!!!!! I had tears in my eyes."
Originally posted by Krypton
Oh, so witnesses at the Pentagon are corrupt. But witnesses of explosions at the WTC? We can trust them right?:stongue:
I'm balancing the weight of what black box data, the most reliable and indestructable piece of the airplane (coming in a close second, the six tonne Rolls Royce turbine engines that disappeared into the Pentagon, without a trace..) against the potential corruption of human nature. Machines don't lie. ;)
The people who testify explosions in the WTC have nothing to protect. The witnesses who claim they saw Flight 77 are defending the Official Story.
{b.s.e.}
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Machines don't lie.
im really trying to stay out of here, but you guys keep saying the damndest things!
machines lie and make mistakes all the ing time, who are you kidding? :stongue:
and can i just ask, why did the conspirators crash 2 planes into buildings but decided to hide a third and fire a missile at the building instead?
seriously, what you guys mistake for truth the rest of the world sees as a really bad B-grade movie :haha: like honestly, if you were in charge would you really design a plan this ing stupid? jesus.
Trancer-X
We all seem to be forgetting about how FBI counterterrorism expert John O'Neil resigned in protest over Presidential Directive W199I-WF-213589.
quote:
Bush took FBI agents off Laden family trail
LONDON: America was itself to blame for the events of September 11 because the US administration was using "kid gloves" in tracking down Osama bin Laden and "other fanatics linked to Saudi Arabia", a special BBC investigation has alleged in a damning indictment of the two presidents Bush and American foreign policy.
The report, which the BBC claimed was based on a secret FBI document, numbered 199I WF213589 and emanating out of the FBI’s Washington field office, alleged that the cynicism of the American establishment and "connections between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush men and bin Ladens" may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the World Trade Centre attacks.
The investigation, which featured in the BBC’s leading current affairs programme, Newsnight, said the FBI was told to "back off" investigating one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers, Abdullah, who was linked to "the Saudi-funded World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation," whose accounts have still not frozen by the US treasury despite "being banned by Pakistan some weeks ago and India claiming it was linked to an organisation involved in bombing in Kashmir".
Newsnight said there was a long history of "shadowy" American connections with Saudi Arabia, not least the two presidents Bush’s "business dealings" with the bin Ladens and another more insidious link revealed by the former head of the American visa section in Jeddah.
The official said he had been concerned about visas issued to large numbers of "unqualified" men "with no family links or any links with America or Saudi Arabia", only to find out later that it "was not visa fraud" but part of a scheme in which young men "recruited by Osama bin Laden" were being sent for "terrorist training by the CIA" after which they were sent on to Afghanistan.
In a reiteration of a now well-known claim by one of George W Bush’s former business partners, the BBC said he made his first million 20 years ago on the back of a company financed by Osama’s elder brother, Salem. But it added the more disturbing assertion that both presidents Bush had lucrative stakes along with the bin Ladens in Carlyle Corporation, a small private company which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors. The bin Ladens sold their stake in Carlyle soon after September 11, it said.
American politicians later told the BBC programme that they rejected the accusation that the establishment had called the dogs of the intelligence agencies off the bin Ladens and the royal House of Saud because of a strategic interest in Saudi Arabia, which has the world's biggest oil reserve.
The BBC says that America's special agents backed away from the bin Laden family soon after George W Bush became president.
Agents were also told to back off the Saudi royals - although that has all changed since September 11.
The findings come from documents obtained from the FBI investigation of the US terror attacks by the Newsnight programme.
The papers show that despite the myth that Osama is the black sheep of the family, at least two other American-based members of it are suspected of links with a possible terrorist organisation.
Newsnight says it has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between the State Department, the CIA and the Saudis.
The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah from 1987 to 1989, Michael Springman, told the programme: "In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants.
"People who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained there. I complained here in Washington to Main State, to the Inspector General and to Diplomatic Security and I was ignored."
He added: "What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists - recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets."
The US allegedly wanted to keep the pro-American Saudi royal family in control of the world's biggest oil spigot, even at the price of turning a blind eye to any terrorist connection - so long as America was safe.
The programme said the younger George Bush made his first million with an oil company partly funded by the chief US representative of Salem bin Laden, Osama's brother, who took over as head of the family after his father Mohammed's death in a plane crash in 1968.
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im really trying to stay out of here
We've all heard the same BS from you before.
pkcRAISTLIN
i know. but your lies and juvenile attempts at research & deductive reasoning keep drawing me back in. so sue me.
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im really trying to stay out of here, but you guys keep saying the damndest things!
machines lie and make mistakes all the ing time, who are you kidding? :stongue:
and can i just ask, why did the conspirators crash 2 planes into buildings but decided to hide a third and fire a missile at the building instead?
seriously, what you guys mistake for truth the rest of the world sees as a really bad B-grade movie :haha: like honestly, if you were in charge would you really design a plan this ing stupid? jesus.
You're right, I should have said, "Black boxes don't lie." Now that we've avoided that confusion, let's get back to the facts.
In effect, you support your case with the following:
i. The footage released by the Pentagon
At 1:27 you can see their confession: whatever is about to enter the field of vision, I assure is not moving faster than the speed of light, yet it blatantly disappears; followed by a medium-sized explosion (in comparison to the WTCs). They had to show something, an explosion wouldn't cut it, it couldn't just appear out of nowhere; this isn't the creation of the universe(!), although to most it seems to be a fabrication of some sort of reality.. :wtf:.. Unless!.. the plane did travel fast enough to create its own wormhole and break the bonds of this dimension.. which explains why the wings weren't ripped off!..and the windows didn't break..
This is what you expect to see, but you don't get it. ;)
b) Paper mache bodies with muscle texture, no wounds where the ears should be, and what could only be oxidisation? lol They don't even give names of who this might be..
iii. Eyewitness tesitimony
Here is some eyewitness testimony for you. :thepirate
quote:
PENTAGON EYEWITNESS DEBUNKS OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY
Civilian Pilot Saw Global Hawk and Control Plane
Christopher Bollyn
An eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forward with an astonishing account that debunks the official 9/11 story and corroborates the hypothesis that an unmanned – and weaponized – Global Hawk drone was involved in the attack.
Nearly 5 years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, an eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forth with testimony, which, if accurate, completely debunks the official version that a hijacked Boeing 757 flew into the 5-sided military fortress housing the U.S. Department of Defense.
Samuel D. Danner, a civilian pilot and electrical engineer from Hagerstown, Maryland, says he was trying to get out of Washington on the morning of 9/11 after hearing of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Having made a wrong turn, Danner wound up heading south on Washington Blvd. (Virginia Highway 27), the highway that passes alongside the western side of the Pentagon. It was from the shoulder of Highway 27, across from the Pentagon, that Danner says he observed the approaching aircraft involved in the attack.
Danner's eyewitness account corroborates the theory that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), known as Global Hawk, was flown by remote control into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon, the fortress of the Department of War that was built on a low lying area formerly known as Hell's Bottom. Although Danner's testimony is unique in its detail and description of the aircraft, it is supported by an abundance of photographic evidence and numerous statements made by other eyewitnesses.
Now a multi-billion dollar defense project involving contractors like L3 Communications Titan Group, Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., and Raytheon, the Global Hawk is a 44-foot long jet-powered surveillance UAV with a 116 foot wing span that can fly 12,000 miles at an altitude of 65,000 feet at 400 miles per hour. At the time of the attack, however, the U.S. Air Force had only 6 Global Hawks in service. Two of the original Global Hawks reportedly crashed, one at China Lake, California, another "somewhere overseas," according to a spokesman at Edwards Air Force Base where the aircraft is tested.
"Two Global Hawk crashes occurred in the Central Command Area of Operation, which is Southwest Asia," a spokesman for the U.S.A.F. later told AFP. "Both these crashes occurred during support for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, which started after September 11th," he added.
The evidence supporting the theory that a Global Hawk was flown into the Pentagon by remote control has been investigated by this writer in American Free Press. While Danner's testimony corroborates this hypothesis, which is supported by evidence, there is not a single piece of evidence, physical or photographic in the public domain to support the government version that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon...
iv. Phony, falsified flight paths that differ from the unmistakable data from the black box. The actual data shows that the plane flies right over the building. As well come from a completely different approach than what is mentioned in the Report.
lol. again with your ilk's obsession with videos. why would a camera that takes a few frames a second expect to capture an object flying at hundreds of miles/hour? seriously, what's your problem? :conf:
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol. again with your ilk's obsession with videos. why would a camera that takes a few frames a second expect to capture an object flying at hundreds of miles/hour? seriously, what's your problem? :conf:
It would appear that my 'problem' (more of an issue, if you'd like me to clarify) is that you continue to spew outright lies (spew outright government lies), all the while laying serious claims to my mental stability, my grasp on reality, and level of intelligence.
Do you see cop car drive by the camera? That should indicate to you that the camera is capable of picking up movement of an object, up unto and including a massive ing twin-engine jet. Don't skewer the issues here. The tip of that white object is far too small to convince anyone but a child or a willing liar to see Boeing 737 crash into the Pentagon.
