Magmak1 Apr 8 2006, 09:24 PM IP: 24.63.59.25 | Post #1585|


Advanced Member
Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 6-November 04
From: NE Mass.
Member No.: 636

9/11 Victims' Families to Get Government Files
Prosecutors Ordered to Disclose Records Given to Moussaoui's Defense Team

By Jerry Markon, Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 8, 2006; Page A02

The judge overseeing the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui yesterday ordered prosecutors to provide hundreds of thousands of government documents generated as evidence in the case to lawyers representing families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema issued the order in connection with a civil lawsuit filed by the families against the aviation industry, alleging that it failed to prevent the attacks. The civil case is pending in New York, and Moussaoui is on trial in a separate criminal proceeding in Alexandria.

But attorneys for the victims came to Brinkema's Alexandria courtroom yesterday because, they said, she had the authority to order the disclosure of documents that have been turned over to Moussaoui's defense team. The plaintiffs' attorneys said they believed the documents, which they have been unable to obtain from the government, will help them show in the civil case that the airline industry knew about the risks of airline hijackings before Sept. 11 but failed to act.

In granting the request, Brinkema criticized the government for what she said was excessive secrecy in the Moussaoui case and other matters. "I've always been troubled by the degree to which our government keeps things secret from the American people," she said.

The judge ordered the government to give the civil lawyers all the unclassified materials provided to Moussaoui's defense, but the document production would not start until after Moussaoui's trial. Moussaoui is the only person convicted in the United States in connection with the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. A federal jury in Alexandria is considering whether he should be executed. Testimony resumes Monday.

It is unclear what is in the documents or how many there are, although prosecutors indicated at the hearing yesterday that they gave Moussaoui's attorneys hundreds of thousands of FBI reports alone. Prosecutors opposed the document request as overly broad and unrelated to the criminal case against Moussaoui.

But the plaintiffs' attorneys hailed Brinkema's order as a victory for the nearly 3,000 people who died Sept. 11. "We're just asking to see what Moussaoui's guys saw," one of the lawyers, Ron Motley, said after the hearing. "That's fair."

Tim Wagner, a spokesman for American Airlines, said he could not comment on pending litigation. Spokesmen for United Airlines did not return calls. The airlines are among the parties being sued in the New York civil case, which was filed in 2002.


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

If we are not willing to engage in meaningful, authentic conversation in order to produce a better future than another World War, then do we deserve peace? Where is the intersection of our own deep gladness and the world's deep hunger? There be dragons. There be the new frontier.

Magmak1 Apr 8 2006, 09:43 PM IP: 24.63.59.25 | Post #1586|


Advanced Member
Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 6-November 04
From: NE Mass.
Member No.: 636

An excerpt from http://emperors-clothes.com/news/hollywood-i.htm, citing a BBC article which appeared on October 8th, 2001:

US Army Gets Secret Advice from Hollywood
[Posted 8 October 2001]
=======================================

"In particular...the entertainment industry can offer [the Army] expertise in understanding plot and character, as well as advice on scenario training." - (BBC, 8 October 2001)

TENC Note: The following is a report from BBC about secret meetings between US military intelligence and Hollywood movie makers, including the screenwriter of terrorist-thriller 'Die Hard,' a movie which features terrorists who plot to blow up a skyscraper. The US military is seeking advice on how to develop the plot, the characters, and the sense of suspense in future terrorist attacks.

[START of REPORT]

Monday, 8 October, 2001, 12:36 GMT 13:36 UK

American intelligence specialists are reported to have "secretly" sought advice on handling terrorist attacks from Hollywood film-makers.

According to the trade paper Variety, a discussion group between movie and military representatives was held at the University of Southern California last week.

The group is said to have been set up by the US Army to discuss future terrorist activity in the wake of the attacks of 11 September.

Among those reported to have been involved were Die Hard screenwriter Steven E De Souza and Joseph Zito, director of Delta Force One and Missing in Action.

Other, more conventional, feature makers were also said to have been present, including Randal Kleiser, who made Grease.

Expertise

Such a scenario - where the army turns to the creators of film fantasy for advice about real-life disaster - would seem an unusual, not to say unlikely, reversal of roles.

Variety dismissed the notion that such a scenario - where the army turns to the creators of film fantasy for advice about real-life disaster - was unusual, not to say unlikely, reversal of roles.

The paper argues that there is much the masters of screen suspense can offer the US Army in the way of tactical advice.

In particular, says Variety, the entertainment industry can offer expertise in understanding plot and character, as well as advice on scenario training.

The US Army is also behind the university's Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT). The ICT calls upon the resources and talents of the entertainment industry and computer scientists to help with virtual reality scenario simulation.

Variety reported that the ICT's creative director James Korris confirmed that the meetings between the film-makers and the US Army were taking place.

However, the paper added that Mr Korris had refused to give details as to what specific recommendations had been made to the US government.

[END of REPORT]

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertain...000/1586468.stm



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

If we are not willing to engage in meaningful, authentic conversation in order to produce a better future than another World War, then do we deserve peace? Where is the intersection of our own deep gladness and the world's deep hunger? There be dragons. There be the new frontier.

Magmak1 Apr 8 2006, 09:49 PM IP: 24.63.59.25 | Post #1587|


Advanced Member
Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 6-November 04
From: NE Mass.
Member No.: 636

Found at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/devries/psyops.htm :

-- --

U.S. Army 'Psyops' Specialists worked for CNN
By Abe de Vries
From the Dutch newspaper, Trouw, 21 February 2000
Translation by Emperor's Clothes
[Posted 22 February 2000]
=======================================

WASHINGTON, ATLANTA - For a short time last year, CNN employed military specialists in 'psychological operations' (psyops). This was confirmed to Trouw by a spokesman of the U.S. Army. The military could have influenced CNN's news reports about the crisis in Kosovo.

"Psyops personnel, soldiers and officers, have been working in CNN's headquarters in Atlanta through our program 'Training With Industry,'" said Major Thomas Collins of the U.S. Army Information Service in a telephone interview last Friday. "They worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news.''

These military, a "handful" according to Collins, stayed with CNN for at least a couple of weeks "to get to know the company and to broaden their horizons''. Collins maintains that "they didn't work under the control of the army." The temporary outplacement of U.S. Army psyops personnel in various sectors of society began a couple of years ago. Contract periods vary from a couple of weeks to one year.

CNN is the biggest and most widely viewed news station in the world. The intimate liaisons with army psyops specialists raise serious doubts about CNN's journalistic integrity and independence. The military CNN-personnel belonged to the airmobile Fourth Psychological Operations Group, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. One of the main tasks of this group of almost 1200 soldiers and officers is to spread 'selected information'.

American psyops troops try with a variety of techniques to influence media and public opinion in armed conflicts in which American state interests are said to be at stake. The propaganda group was involved in the Gulf war, the Bosnian war and the crisis in Kosovo.

So far CNN has not commented on the allegations. "I don't believe that we would employ military personnel; it doesn't seem like something we would normally do," said CNN-spokeswoman Megan Mahoney on Friday evening. But when the U.S. Army Information Service confirmed the news, Mahoney said she would have to contact CNN's senior officials. However, on Sunday evening CNN still could not provide an official statement to Trouw.

CNN's coverage of the war in Kosovo, and that of other media, has attracted criticism from several sides as having been one-sided, overly emotional, over-simplified and relying too heavily on NATO officials. On the other hand, journalists have complained about the lack of reliable information from NATO; for almost all of them it was impossible to be on the battlefield and file first-hand reports.




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

If we are not willing to engage in meaningful, authentic conversation in order to produce a better future than another World War, then do we deserve peace? Where is the intersection of our own deep gladness and the world's deep hunger? There be dragons. There be the new frontier.

jimiray Apr 8 2006, 10:41 PM IP: 166.102.45.11 | Post #1588|


Advanced Member
Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 1,709
Joined: 23-June 05
Member No.: 3,940

Ron Paul on the Next War

Congressman Ron Paul’s been pretty spot on with issues concerning the Iraq War. He just provided us an advance view on the next U.S. war — if the neo-cons get their way, that is. Here’s how he begins:
It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.

The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today.

And here’s his conclusion:
I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I’m wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we’re in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “enough already!”

The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It’s too bad we can’t learn from our mistakes.

This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.

It’s already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored.

Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this president took office.

I know many of you are feeling excited about the recent changes in public sentiment about the war in Iraq and have hopes for a least a gradual withdrawal from that country before too long. Just keep one thing in mind: Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/04/08/ron-pa...n-the-next-war/

graham4anything Apr 9 2006, 07:23 PM IP: 67.85.28.66 | Post #1589|


Advanced Member
Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 14,590
Joined: 5-November 04
Member No.: 336

QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Apr 6 2006, 03:07 AM)
See “Understanding 9/11 Paradigms” at http://www.oilempire.us/understanding.html

“The growing flood of fake claims for complicity is actually evidence of a sophisticated psychological warfare effort to cover the tracks of the conspiracy.”










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

PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE- RE-ELECT AL GORE IN 2008
-WITHOUT ANGER, THERE IS NO ACTION. Never forget 12/12/2000
-Keep it simple-just say NIXON. BUSH=NIXON.
-The #1 thing President Bush says he will do to address global warming is to wait 2 years. President Gore will fix it.-Arnold's environmental expert & cabinet sec. Tommy Tamminen-Dec.05.
-"Everything is a lie"-G4a except for the fact that
-"DA FIX IS INDEED IN."©g4a) That is the truth, and it must be stopped. Hillary is part of the problem.

-"A WINNER SIMPLY DOES WHAT A LOSER WON'T"(Eastwood movie)

-Wilford Brimley in the movie "Absence of Malice":
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Tell you what we're gonna do. We're gonna sit right here and talk about it. Now if you get tired of talking here, Mr. Marshal Elving Patrick there will hand you one of them subpoenas he's got stuck down in his pocket and we'll go downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury... Elliot? Jim?... Fine. All right, Elving, hand whichever one of these fellas you like a subpoena and we'll go on downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury.
District Attorney James A. Quinn: Gallagher's a government witness.
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Wonderful thing, a subpoena

Magmak1 Apr 9 2006, 08:53 PM IP: 172.144.71.25 | Post #1590|


Advanced Member
Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 6-November 04
From: NE Mass.
Member No.: 636

911 and the Precautionary Principle:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

In its entirety from http://scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesNelson28Feb2006.html


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

If we are not willing to engage in meaningful, authentic conversation in order to produce a better future than another World War, then do we deserve peace? Where is the intersection of our own deep gladness and the world's deep hunger? There be dragons. There be the new frontier.

Magmak1 Apr 9 2006, 10:30 PM IP: 24.63.59.25 | Post #1591|


Advanced Member
Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 6-November 04
From: NE Mass.
Member No.: 636

Some excerpts from http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=43&i=6&t=6:

Which in turn is excerpted from

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11
- A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before
by Matt Everett
The Journal of Psychohistory (Volume 32, No. 3 - Winter 2005)

The original article has footnotes indicating sources, as does the excerpts at the web site noted above.


“… there was a growing interest around the investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001. Previously, the press had largely ignored the work of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, better known as the "9-11 Commission." When it held its second public hearings in May 2003 on the key issue of air defense, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times failed to write any articles about it. Suddenly though, in March 2004 the Commission became the center of attention when former White House security expert Richard Clarke publicly testified before it and criticized the Bush administration for failing to address terrorism when it first came into office. Since then, the 9/11 Commission remained a major news story and the book of its final report became an instant bestseller. However, the mass media were still overlooking the fact that increasing numbers of people were seriously questioning the entire official account of 9/11. More and more books had been released around the world giving evidence of possible U.S. government complicity in the attacks….

I believe it is possible that, instead, this growing suspicion around 9/11 will develop into an unprecedented public scandal. But what are these suspicions about? Are they simply the result of rumour and 'urban legend,' or could some of the disturbing allegations now being made be found true in future? In this article, I will examine some of the arguments put forward by 9/11 skeptics, along with supporting evidence. Then I will examine some of the psychohistorical evidence that shows why we could be heading for a major scandal over the events of 9/11. Until the controversy around 9/11 is brought into the open and investigated properly, it is up to individuals to draw their own conclusions. However, in my opinion, the volume of evidence now gathered is enough to suggest a massive scandal is a real possibility. The implications of this would be extraordinary. As one of the most prominent 9/11 skeptics, former German government minister Andreas von Bülow, says: "If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars.

… it appears that Cheney -- along with Bush -- was reluctant for 9/11 to be investigated: When then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle appeared on NBC's Meet the Press in May 2002, he said Cheney had, on January 24 that year, urged him not to investigate the events of September 11. Daschle added that four days later Bush made the same request. When the program's moderator Tim Russert asked: "It wasn't, 'Let's not have a national commission, but let's have the intelligence committees look into this,' it was 'No investigation by anyone, period'?" Daschle replied: "That's correct." He added that the request had been repeated on "other dates following."

"The White House long opposed the formation of a blue-ribbon Sept. 11 commission, some say, and even now that panel is underfunded and struggling to build momentum. And, they say, the administration is suppressing a 900-page congressional study, possibly out of fear that the findings will be politically damaging to Bush.

"We've been fighting for nearly 21 months -- fighting the administration, the White House," says Monica Gabrielle. Her husband, Richard, an insurance broker who worked for Aon Corp. on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center's Tower 2, died during the attacks. "As soon as we started looking for answers we were blocked, put off and ignored at every stop of the way. We were shocked. The White House is just blocking everything."

Another 9/11 family advocate…was more blunt: "Bush has done everything in his power to squelch this [9/11] commission and prevent it from happening."

After opposing the creation of the 9/11 Commission, the White House wanted to limit any appearance by the president to just one hour spent with two of the commissioners. A compromise was met such that George Bush did eventually meet with the Commission on April 29, 2004, but only under stringent conditions. Bush had to have Dick Cheney at his side, testifying at the same time; testimony was given in private and not under oath; no press coverage was allowed; and no recordings or transcripts were made of what they said.



… the FBI arrived in Venice just hours after the 9/11 attacks. A former manager from Huffman Aviation said: "They were outside my house four hours after the attack." He added: "My phones have been bugged, they still are…. How did the FBI get here so soon? Ask yourself: How'd they got here so soon?" Within 24 hours of the attacks, records from Huffman Aviation, where Atta and al-Shehhi attended, were escorted aboard a C-130 cargo plane to Washington by Florida governor and brother of the president Jeb Bush. Similarly, according to a sergeant with the Venice police, the FBI took all their files and flew them to Washington with Jeb Bush aboard. (Presumably this was on the same flight as the Huffman records.) Hopsicker notes: "The important point was that taking files was a lot different than copying them. The FBI wasn't taking any chances." He concludes: "There is a demonstrable, provable, and massive federally-supervised cover-up in place in Florida."



… there are countless unanswered questions about 9/11 that at some point are going to have to be properly examined. Even an investigation into just a few of these questions, such as those around the war games on 9/11, could be enough to start a major scandal. However, as numerous writers and independent researchers have found, there are so many suspicious circumstances that the truth could be very different to what we have been led to believe. The human rights lawyer Richard Falk has written: "There are so many gaping holes in the official accounts of 9/11 that no plausible coherent narrative remains, and until now we have been staggering forward as if the truth about these traumatic events no longer mattered." But if the mainstream press start investigating properly, it could lead to a completely unprecedented '9/11 scandal.'






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

If we are not willing to engage in meaningful, authentic conversation in order to produce a better future than another World War, then do we deserve peace? Where is the intersection of our own deep gladness and the world's deep hunger? There be dragons. There be the new frontier.

WHAT IS THIS???

Where is the long thread?

The least you could do is PUT A LINK INTO THE TOP OF THIS SO ANYONE LOOKING FOR VOL. ONE COULD FIND IT

And VOL. 1 SHOULD BE PINNED.

Well, when I click "view new posts" the 'old' 'long' thread shows up 10 spots below this thread. Of course, that will change now that I have this post. The point is, it's not gone, and it's still in its own little universe in the café.

The Internet is an amazing tool...

One of the things I discovered, years after the event, is this article from the Boston Globe on the evening of the events on 9/11 in which a US Congressman declared "This was an inside job".


Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., emerging from an evening briefing for lawmakers at Capitol police headquarters, said he thought the state's congressional delegation would converge in the next few days around the issue of how the hijacking could have happened at Logan.

"This was an inside job," said Neal. "We should be mindful of that in and around Logan."

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/massport_conference.htm

Plug in your headphones for best listening and then watch this video of Bush at the press conference in which he is surprised by a question asking him about Dean's conjecture of Bush's foreknowledge of 9/11.

From where does Bush's final answer arise?

Proposition 911

U.S. citizens have a reason, a right and a responsibility
to demand the whole Truth about 9/11 from George W. Bush.

Your Position: (Support) (Oppose)

A Simple True vs. False Choice Shall Be put to the Media and the Government

An initiative to factually establish, and effectively compell official public response to the confluence of the following justifications that U.S. citizens could rightfully claim as reason to pressure the press to press the president to present the "9/11 Truth" (i.e. Facts relating to the under-examined topic of Bush's 9/11 failures and fortunes.):

REASON - The case for probable cause to compell the 9/11 Truth from Bush.
RIGHT - The constitutionally-guaranteed citizen Right to the Truth in Government.
RESPONSIBILITY - The duty to verify that the U.S. has NOT been comandeered in a covert coup d'etat by a powerful and profoundly corrupt Bush family network.

Whereas, since 9/11 was the best thing that could have happened for the Bush administration, it is dangerously illogical and ill advised to leave unresolved, the issue as to whether the situation is coincidence or conspiracy. The de facto operating assumption of most Americans is that 9/11 was just a convenient coincidence for Bush. Closer examination of the issue reveals probable cause to conclude otherwise. The following facts and analysis reasonably constitute a compelling case to be made for demanding that this issue be embraced and advanced as legitimate news.

THE CASE - Team Bush possessed the means, method and motive to enable 9/11 Fulsome perspective on Bush begins with his family history in business and government involving defense, intelligence, energy, Saudi rulers and deceptive practices as described by Kevin Phillips, in his book, American Dynasty - Aristrocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. It paints a portrait of a family which could possess the means, method and motive to allow the attackers’ success, knowing it would justify pre-existing plans for war profiteering.

EXHIBIT A - Agenda: Proof of Premeditation of Profit Motives

The Project for a New American Century(PNAC) is a think tank founded by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush Administration officials. Precisely one year prior to 9/11, on page 51 of a policy paper titled Rebuilding America's Defenses, PNAC accurately predicted that advance of their agenda would only accelerate after a "catalyzing and cataclysmic event...like a new Pearl Harbor.

EXHIBIT 'B' - Behavior: Gross negligence of duties as Commander-in-Chief

The video clip made famous by Michael Moore, shows Commander-in-Chief Bush inaction in the class room. He was the only human who could have authorized use of military force against domestic commercial aircraft. Interestingly, the command chain for those orders had been re-routed April 2001, to go through Donald Rumsfeld, who was also apparently oblivious to the meaning of black smoke streaming from the twin towers. Bush failure to perform on 9/11 and ever since, in his duty to seek answers and accountability for the many mysterious breakdowns, is simply suspect.

EXHIBIT 'C' - Cover-up: The pattern of secrecy is a clear and present danger

Not only did Bush not try to find and fix the flaws and failures that enabled 9/11, but the administration actively undermined investigation, stone-walled and covered-up. The Bush White House whitewashed the 9/11 Commission and discouraged investigation at every step that it could. The administration also over-classified the 9/11 Congressional inquiry report, redacting 28 pages about 9/11 plot support by Bush associates in Saudi government, as detailed in a book by Senator Bob Graham.

RESOLVED,
That, the People of the United States who challenge the official story of 9/11, hereafter referred to as Team Truth, having just cause for concern about the state of the Union, hereby declare as justified, this exercise of the 1st Amendment Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances with George W. Bush and his administration, regarding his refusal to discuss or disclose facts relevent to the events of September 11, 2001.

That, Team Truth, in order to justify this exercise of political will, based upon substantiation put forth herein, do ordain and establish our legitimate possession of the reason, the right and the responsibility to challenge the official "9/11 Story".

That, The foregoing course of action is necessitated and justified by the steadily-emerging potential for a scenario of significant consequence to the national interest. The probability for this crisis situation increases with every day that the Bush administration refuses to disclose details about 9/11, which can reasonably be construed as indicating the incrimating nature of the details. It is imperitive that the citizen public know the whole Truth about the events of September 11, 2001, with regard to their relationship to the foreknowledge, failures and fortunes of the Bush administration. Since citizen access to Truth in Government is contingent upon the will of the press to fulfill its function as the "fourth estate", then mainstream media must be called into account as to their respective reactions to this proposition.

THE REASON
That, The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that U.S. ‘National Security’ failures were a major factor that enabled 19 perpetrators to achieve such stunning success on 9/11. The panel also points out that there has not been a single disciplinary action in connection with any of these extraordinary breakdowns of national defense and law enforcement. It is reasonable to conclude that, since accountability is a top-down-the-ranks management dynamic, then in lieu of any 9/11-related discipline, responsibility should ascend the command chain, ultimately arriving at the desk of the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. President, George W. Bush (GWB).

That, This perspective that GWB is responsible for 9/11, plus the widely acknowledged fact that he is exploiting 9/11, makes clear that it’s not only fair, but also necessary to conduct a performance evaluation with a fulsome perspective on 9/11’s significance to the nation. Such analysis should give appropriate consideration to the idea that GWB holds a solemn 9/11 ‘responsibility', inseparable from and of a comparable degree to the ‘authority’ that he derived from 9/11. It is fair to conclude that responsible White House response to such easy infiltration of the continental United States by political adversaries willing to die to make their lethal point, must necessitate identification and correction of three major factors in 9/11:

National security failures that enabled the attackers to succeed.
Foreign policy failures that motivated the attackers to succeed.
Secrecy policy failures that prevented detection, allowing the attackers to succeed.

The Commander-In-Chief, who presided over 9/11, should have led the quest to find and fix these flaws and failures at home and minimize provocative policy abroad. However, that scenario could hardly be much further from the truth. Even Bush-appointed 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean acknowledged such Bush administration resistance to investigation that the “9/11 Families” had to overcome. Remarking about the four 9/11 Widows known as ‘The Jersey Girls,’ he affirmed, “I doubt very much we would be in existence without them.” [NYT .04.04.01]

That, speculation as to why the White House would impede investigation could well begin with logic offered by GWB himself; that topic-avoidance implies guilt. On April 29, 2004, GWB and Dick Cheney were ‘interviewed’ by the 9/11 Panel at the White House, in a session criticized by the New York Times for its excessive secrecy. After the interview, while talking to reporters in the Rose Garden, GWB had the perfect opportunity to put an end to suggestions that their secrecy was suspect, but all he said on the matter was, “If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place!” GWB and Cheney had only agreed to the meeting under political pressure after credible accounts by former White House officials that GWB ignored terrorist threats before 9/11. Since it was well known that they had actually avoided the panel for months, the fact that Bush ‘spin doctors’ couldn’t think of anything better is revealing; as is GWB’s refusal to answer to the very next question posed to him in the Rose Garden, “Don’t you think the 9/11 Families deserve to have a transcript or be able to see what you said?” Since GWB was willing to risk the political ramifications of such blatant disrespect to the 9/11 Families, it is reasonable to conclude that whatever the ‘9/11 Truth’ is, it is likely to be quite incriminating.

THE RIGHT
That, the fundamental philosophical foundation of the United States, articulated in documents such as The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, is predicated upon essential ideas such as self-evident Truths and Unalienable Rights. For example, the first amendment guarantees the right to an unrestricted Press and citizen freedom to petition the government to redress grievances.

That, based on the founders passion for the liberty of truth over the tyranny of deceit and appreciation for the dynamics of democracy, one could reasonably conclude that "Truth", per se, belongs among these Rights which define a democratic repuplic. Since democracy depends on citizen access to Truth - all facts relevant to the discharge of duties in public office - it must not be denied by any form of tyranny. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that implicit in the basic citizen Rights, which were left open-ended to be amended, is the Right to Truth about the state of the nation.

That, It was only about a century after Roger Williams was bannished by the Puritans in Massachusetts for ideas about "Liberty of Conscience" and seperation of church and state, that the United States was founded upon those very same principles. So, it is likely the founders steered clear of the delicate issue of defining "Truth", in order to achieve consensus and proceed. But they likely visualized that there would come a time when the democracy would need to define "Truth" in a governmental sense, so that it could be guaranteed as a Right. The time has come that we, the People can and must recalibrate Truth in a way that can be guaranteed.

THE RESPONSIBILITY
That, Truth is not only a citizen right, but a responsibility that comes with democracy's citizen-sovereignty over government. As the ultimate authority in a democracy, citizens have a responsibility for the actions of their elected officials. Upon bestowing the authority imbued in public office, all citizens in turn, accept a share of the responsibility to ensure that the authority is not being compromised by corruptive influence in between elections.

That, as a rule, if suspicion is reasonably suggested by bigger picture perspective about patterns of behavior, including a constellation of circumstances that reasonably resemble those commonly observed with criminal complicity, then the matter must be addressed. Due diligence should be practiced in pursuit of either proving suspicions false or impeaching, investigating, indicting, prosecuting and sentencing criminals.

That, citizen ability to fulfill the responsibility to exercise this right to the Truth is dependent upon professional journalism, also known as the "press". To fulfill its function as "the fourth estate", the role of the press includes its own responsibility; to gather and report "Truth" about matters of government, including all relevant information pertaining to the honorable discharge of duties in public office.

THE REDRESS
That, whether or not it applies to 9/11, it may prove prudent to compell the Congress to promptly draft, adopt, enact and invoke a "Truth in Government" Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This measure must provide for a mechanism of mandamus as a means to address apparent abuses of powers. The act should create legislative authority that would, upon establishment of probable cause, enable Congress to overcome claims of Executive Privilege and compell full disclosure of details being withheld by the President and the Cabinet pertaining to performance in the discharge of duties, as an legal instrument to be formally known as "Executive Challenge".

THE CONCLUSION
Therefore, this proposition and supporting documents serve to establish reasonable probability that Team Bush is hiding a 9/11 Truth to which the American people have a Right. These arguments constitute the basic case establishing ‘probable cause’, which justifies demands that Team Bush consent to promptly provide full, sworn and public disclosure of the ‘9/11 Truth, the whole 9/11 Truth and nothing but the 9/11 Truth.’ Bush failure to do so can reasonably be contrued as further proof of cover-up, which is a fairly accurate indicator of criminal activity. The prospects for it increase when combined with the other questionable Team Bush behavior patterns.

Given the validity of this contention and the gravity of the scenario presented herein, it is justifiable to expect the press and other relevant agencies to respond. Those that officially maintain that the proposition possesses a truth-value of ‘false’ should post credible documented evidence supporting that position for public perusal on its web site.

http://www.proposition911.org/prop911.asp

I don't know why I'm even replying, since I know your mind is already made up, as is everyone else posting in this thread - but here I go again.

"This was an inside job" refers to the possibility of security members at the airport actively helping the hijackers. Happens all the time in robberies without implicating any government officials.

As we've learned through the investigation into the events of that day, there wasn't any inside help by security at any of the airports, however security at Logan was (and still is) quite lacking. Even with that, the means used to hijack the planes were simply using the rules in place at that time to their advantage.

It's difficult, looking with knowledge and bias we have today, at words and actions from the past. Bias makes historical research difficult. That's what you are doing. Leave your bias at the door when you start searching for answers, be sceptical, but don't fall for every theory that comes down the path.

Volume One has been pinned. In fact, it was pinned before Volume 2 was started.

Study: 9/11 Escapees Have Health Problems

By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press WriterSun Apr 9, 4:10 AM ET

A majority of survivors of the 2001 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center suffered from respiratory ailments and depression, anxiety and other psychological problems up to three years later, federal health officials said Friday.

The people who escaped from collapsed or damaged buildings on Sept. 11, 2001, were several times as likely to suffer from breathing problems or psychological trauma if they were caught in the cloud of trade center dust and debris that covered lower Manhattan, researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

"The trauma of being caught in the cloud itself, the whole experience had an impact on their ... psychological health later on," said Dr. Robert M. Brackbill, a CDC doctor working with the World Trade Center Health Registry, which has been tracking the health of more than 71,000 people who worked at ground zero or were in the area on Sept. 11.

Friday's study drew from preliminary interviews with 8,418 adults in the registry who escaped from the twin towers, the collapsed Seven World Trade Center and more than 30 buildings that suffered extensive damage on Sept. 11. More than 70 percent escaped from the twin towers.

The interviews took place more than two years after the attacks, between Sept. 5, 2003, and Nov. 20, 2004, and did not involve medical examinations. Follow-up surveys are planned this month.

"We are just beginning to learn about the health effects of the worst day in New York City's history," said Daniel Slippen, a survivor of the attacks and a member of the registry's community advisory board. "It is critical to know whether these physical and mental effects will continue, diminish or grow worse over time."

City officials in charge of the registry say it will likely take 20 years or more to determine whether 9/11 exposure led to increased cancer deaths or illnesses among survivors.

The study said more than six in 10 were caught in the clouds of trade center dust that enveloped the area. Those people were nearly three times as likely to have respiratory problems, 40 percent more likely to experience severe psychological problems and five times more likely to report suffering a stroke, Brackbill said.

More than 56 percent of the survivors said they had new or worsening respiratory ailments, including sinus problems, shortness of breath and a persistent cough. More than 43 percent sustained a physical injury on Sept. 11; the most common were eye injuries.

Almost all of the people studied witnessed at least three events likely to cause psychological trauma, such as the collapse of the towers, the deaths or injuries of others or people jumping from the twin towers, the study said.

More than 64 percent of the survivors said they were depressed, anxious or had other emotional problems, and nearly 11 percent were in severe psychological distress at the time of their interview, the study said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060409/ap_on_...GZoBHNlYwM3NTE-

9/11 First Responders With Cancer Sue City
April 09, 2006

A group of first responders say their brain illness is linked to toxic air and dust from 9/11.

A lawyer for several of those affected says the group is seeking immediate action by the city along with monetary damages. Dozens of people, including six NYPD officers, developed brain cancer after September 11th. Many are blaming the illness on their rescue and recovery work at the Trade Center site.

Their attorney claims that out of the 7,300 sick workers and family members involved in the case, 41 have now died.

The city's lawyers say they will not comment on the case, because they have not yet seen the lawsuit.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=58487

Charlie Sheen on Jimmy Kimmel Live

Friday, Apr 14: Actor Charlie Sheen
http://abc.go.com/primetime/jimmykimmel/

Sunday, April 09, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Pak Embassy official’s claim triggers US media interest

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Investigative reporters, including a couple from a major American TV network, are trying to dig up details of a claim made by a senior Foreign Office official in Islamabad that Pakistan spent thousands of dollars through its lobbyists on member of the 9/11 Commission to drop some of the report’s negative findings about Pakistan.

If this claim turns out to be true, it might land Pakistan in trouble in this country because it would amount to an attempt to improperly influence public officials assigned with ascertaining the truth about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The story, which first surfaced in The Friday Times, Lahore, is based on testimony by Muhammad Sadiq, who was No 2 at the Pakistan embassy in Washington before being posted back to headquarters some months ago, before the Public Accounts Committee. Sadiq, who appeared before the Committee at the end of February this year, revealed that a lot of money had been spent to “silence” members of the inquiry commission and induce them to go “soft” on Pakistan.

According to Sadiq, as quoted by The Friday Times in its issue dated March 3-9, 2006, “dramatic changes” were made in the final draft of the Commission’s report after Pakistani lobbyists arranged meetings with members of the investigation body and convinced them to remove anti-Pakistan findings. This information is also said to be available in the record of the Public Accounts Committee. The officer further claimed that Pakistan won the sympathies of 75 US congressmen as part of its strategy to guard the national interest in the US.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p..._9-4-2006_pg7_8

Impeachment without Blowjobs
BY JESSE MYERSON

After nearly six years of investigating the matter, I have finally disappointingly determined that President Bush has never committed the ultimate impeachable offense: getting dome on the job (if a congressman did this, would it be called “getting a job in the dome?”). My suspicion, for what it’s worth, is still that the reason behind this is just that it’s never been offered to him, and that were it ever, the president would criminally accept. But I’m not one for pre-emptive justice, or for conviction on the basis of guesswork. No, instead, in my quest for impeachment I have, by incident, compiled a list of more minor crimes which, while by no means as egregious as what that wretched, wretched Clinton fellow did, might, taken in whole, constitute grounds for impeachment. Indulge me.

1. President Bush and his administration manipulated intelligence in order to go to war with Iraq. There were no WMD’s. There were no links to Al Qaeda. There was no depleted uranium from Niger. To believe that all this “faulty intelligence” fell into the laps of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, you have to believe beyond proof that they did not come into power wanting to go to war with Iraq. Simply go to the website of Project for the New American Century, and read their reports to disabuse yourself of such a notion (members of PNAC include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and others). For a full account of this atrocity, refer to Rep. John Conyers’ (D-MI) report: “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War.”

2. He is illegally spying… maybe even on you. The top-secret National Security Agency was, by President Bush’s recommendation, spying on Americans, without warrants. By the statutes of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA), this is strictly prohibited—in fact, part of the argument for Nixon’s impeachment was that very offense. The FISA court, whose sole purpose is to hand out warrants in an extremely speedy and often even retroactive manner, has received 19,000 requests since 1979 and denied just five.

3. Among the greatest cities in the world is now a silhouette of its former self because the Administration simply didn’t care to take appropriate measures to protect it. Bush looted SELA, the fund a Clinton-year congress started in order to ensure that Southern Louisiana was provided for, in case of emergency, to pay for his perverse tax-cuts and the aforementioned war in Iraq. Visit to watch the President as he doesn’t care about the dire warnings being issued him by experts and not-so-experts (like the luckless, wretched Michael Brown). More people died than in any terrorist attack, and President Bush is largely responsible.

4. His administration, in a politically-motivated dirty trick, leaked the identity of a CIA operative. Now, I can’t prove that any specific member of the administration did this, but Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation yet continues, and I am confident that when the facts are made plain, the highest reaches of the administration will be implicated. This is not only impeachable, but constitutionally punishable by execution, insofar as it is TREASON!

5. His administration was complicit in and continues to benefit from the September 11 attacks on New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. Since November 22, 1963 (when, in Dallas, the then President’s brains were blown to little tiny pieces) every poll has indicated that roughly one-third of the population believes the government’s official account of the transpired events. And for good reason: you’d be nuts to believe such obvious poppycock. You’d be equally nuts to believe the government’s official account of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. So far, the best challenge of the official account is a wonderful and easily read book, David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11.” It’s not just a good idea to read this book; it’s your patriotic duty.

6. Then, of course, there is the single worst crime he committed, the most un-American, and the one that poses the greatest threat to democracy: he stole the election. I would argue that he stole two of them. For evidence of the latter, turn to another report by Congressman Conyers, this one entitled “Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio, Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff.”

Several congressmen, including John Conyers, have called either for President Bush’s impeachment or for investigations thereunto. It is time we all as lovers of democracy, freedom, justice and truth, join them. The word is “impeachment.” Spread it.


http://observer.bard.edu/articles/opinions/229

If You Love Your Country, You Should Question 9/11
Tuesday, April 4, 2006

Charlie Sheen likes prostitutes.

On March 20th, the aforementioned actor appeared on the Alex Jones radio show to discuss his thoughts on 9/11. He said he didn’t believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, and added the Twin Towers looked like they were imploded.

And the best response anyone could come up with was to say he was nuts and likes prostitutes.

Interesting.

Not that I’m arguing the guy’s predilection for hookers here. I have no doubt that the man who once played Wild Thing Vaughn likes paying for sex from time to time. It’s just that that’s totally irrelevant to his 9/11 theories. Bringing it up seems like a specious way of proving a plane ever hit the Pentagon.

So why is that? Could it be because there’s no other way to prove it?

As crazy as I’m sure this will sound, a number of Americans—and people all over the world—believe, on the basis of questions such as the one I just posed, that 9/11 wasn’t the work of Arab terrorists, but rather an inside job by the U.S. government. The motive? Amongst other things, to swindle us into invading Iraq.

Now, I’m not saying you should believe this theory. And I’m not even saying I believe it myself. But just consider it for a moment. Think a few things over before ruling the whole theory out.

First off, Americans have never seen footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Security cameras supposedly captured it on film, but nobody’s seen it, because the feds have kept it to themselves. All we’ve ever seen is the aftermath: just a giant, smoldering crater… with no tracks on the ground… and no visible signs of an airplane…

Some people believe a missile caused the damage. You might think this is nuts, but absent the footage, who could disprove it?

Then there’s Charlie Sheen’s implosion theory. This one’s tougher to swallow. After all, we’ve seen the footage for this one—we know planes hit the Twin Towers. Yet, as skeptics point out, if you watch the footage closely, you’ll notice a series of small explosions causing structural damage down the sides of the buildings—right when the debris starts to fall. This is consistent with controlled demolitions.

And a number of folks in New York reported bombs going off that day.

Could it be the Twin Towers were wired to crumble? Could it be the planes we saw only told us half the story?

Again, I’m not saying you should believe that’s the case. Nor am I saying you should believe 9/11 was an inside job. But there are reasonable questions that haven’t been answered yet. And at this point, you shouldn’t really know what to believe.

All things considered, it’s easy to see why folks would suspect the worst here. A number of men in the Bush administration pushed for war in Iraq before 9/11, and pushed for it afterwards—in spite of Iraq not attacking us. This alone doesn’t prove a conspiracy. But the fact that the White House likes secrecy as much as Charlie Sheen likes hookers doesn’t exactly help.

Since 9/11, the Bush team has implemented a number of policies—such as torture, domestic spying, and the capture of enemy combatants—all from behind closed doors. Toss in two controversial elections, and tie it all together with the “Unitary Executive” theory (which effectively gives the president power to rewrite laws during wartime), and it’s no wonder people have their suspicions about 9/11. Our government’s undergoing fundamental changes. It’s not nutty to notice this. It’s nuttier not to.

Which, again, doesn’t prove that the fix was in here. Personally, I think staging 9/11 would’ve been too big an ordeal, organizationally speaking. It would’ve been much easier just to drop our guard and let a couple of irrational, America-hating Muslims pull the damn thing off themselves.

All the same, you can’t see what’s happening in Washington and deny our government’s morphing into a new kind of creature. Whether that’s good or bad is beside the point here. How can you even decide? The news media won’t connect the dots. And politicians do nothing but whitewash the issue.

The conspiracy theorists may come off as wacky, but they’re also the only ones willing to expand the parameters of the debate. They raise questions that need to be asked, and it doesn’t make sense to rule anything out before those questions are answered.

America was built upon being skeptical of the government. If you’re interested in preserving this country, you should be stubborn, spiteful, and skeptical, too. I would suggest that every American head over to Google Video and look up a 9/11 documentary called Loose Change. At times, the narrator treats the conspiracy theories as a given. You’re permitted to ignore this. But just keep watching for factual purposes, and then decide if enough questions have been answered on this issue.

The goal here isn’t to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy. It’s to help you decide just how badly your government failed—and continues to fail—you.

Doing this won’t tarnish your memories of 9/11’s victims. It won’t make you a traitor, and it won’t undermine the troops. If you care about your country, its people, and its history, you owe it to yourself and everything you believe in to determine the full story.

It’s the most patriotic thing you can do.

Contact JDM
http://www.readjdm.com/main/jdm/more/320/

Doug Thompson's 9/11 Dog Don't Hunt
International Politics by Sheila Samples
9 Apr 2006

When I first read the March 31 Capitol Hill Blue headline, "9/11 conspiracy theories don't pass the smell test," I thought editor Doug Thompson was pulling an April Fool's joke on us a day early. Buoyed by Thompson's well-deserved reputation for being out there first with "damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead" -- truth no matter where it takes him, I read avidly to the end of the rant, poised to burst into laughter at his "Gotcha!" punch line. It wasn't there.

"I know my government," Thompson ended lamely, "They're just not good enough to pull off something like this."

That's it, then? Thompson's reason for ridiculing those who question 9/11 is "it's improbable such a ragtag group" is capable of attacking a vulnerable nation and killing thousands of its people? Man -- in the wake of all that has happened since 9/11, that dog won't hunt. If Thompson is serious when he says "the many theories surrounding 9/11 come mostly from conspiracy buffs" -- or when he says those whose judgment he trusts "support the facts that Al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks," then his credibility is destroyed on this subject and on all other subjects as well. If he's serious, there's no reason to revisit Capitol Hill Blue or Thompson ever again.

But I'm not convinced Thompson is serious. He's too good at what he does. Like he says -- often -- he's been in journalism "for more than 40 years." He's a hard-hitting reporter whose cognitive and investigative skills are legend; whose "unnamed sources" walk shoulder-to-shoulder throughout the administration; frolic through the halls of Congress. Thompson doesn't just report the news, he breaks it, busts it wide open and takes no prisoners. It is inconceivable that Thompson would back off a story of this magnitude, given his penchant for holding the administration's cloven hooves to the fire, especially those of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Thompson is the man who wrote on March 20 that "the most dangerous man in the world is not sitting in a jail cell somewhere in Iraq...He is not hiding out in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan...The most dangerous man in the world may well be working out of an oval-shaped office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC."

He is the one who unearthed a GOP memo less than a year ago suggesting that a "new attack by terrorists on US soil" could reverse the sagging fortunes of Bush as well as the GOP and would "restore his image as a leader of the American people." This strategy, the memo says, would "'validate" the President's war on terror and allow Bush to "unite the country in a time of national shock and sorrow," and would reverse the President's fortunes and "keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections."

And, as recently as April 4, Thompson wrote, "America is a bully, an international thug that uses fear, lies and deceit to advance the personal agendas of its leaders. Bullies do not deserve respect. Bullies do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Bullies are beneath contempt." Thompson continued, "Unfortunately, as long as Americans tolerate the despotic rule of George W. Bush, we share responsibility for the shame our leadership has brought upon a once-great nation called the United States of America."

Why, then, would Thompson say that he "cannot -- and will not" believe any explanation of what happened on 9/11 other than what the most dangerous man in the world tells him -- a despotic leader who's entertaining the "strategery" of murdering even more Americans for no other reason than to advance his political agenda, and who is a vicious liar who doesn't want the US Constitution thrown in his face because "it's nothing but a goddamned piece of paper?

Does Thompson's dog look to you like it's hunting?...
http://sianews.com/index.php

I was reading this article about Fitzgerard and found these comment's interesting.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/09/fitz...lic-appearance/

Patrick Fitzgerald spoke to a group of students in Chicago last week, and a reporter from the Chicago Tribune tagged along to see what he had to say. Lucky for us. He doesn’t talk about the CIA leak case, but the reporter does glean a few tidbits that I thought might be of interest to our readers:

But he did answer questions about the challenge of seating a jury in a high-profile case and what he thought about the lengthiness of some federal prosecution cases, although in general terms.

Fitzgerald said prosecutors don’t want uninformed jurors.

"If you can find someone in New York who doesn’t know anything about the World Trade Center bombing, that’s probably the last person you want on your jury. They’ve been living under a rock," he said.

"What you have to do is find someone who can put aside what they’ve heard from the media and recognize that cases are tried in the courtroom."



You can read the rest of the article at the Link.

Physicist says heat substance felled WTC

Extremely hot fires caused structures to fail, BYU expert says
By Suzanne Dean
For the Deseret Morning News

EPHRAIM — A Brigham Young University physicist said he now believes an incendiary substance called thermite, bolstered by sulfur, was used to generate exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center on 9/11, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.
"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea," Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.
The government requires standard explosives to contain tag elements enabling them to be traced back to their manufacturers. But no tags are required in aluminum and iron oxide, the materials used to make thermite, he said. Nor, he said, are tags required in sulfur.
Jones is co-chairman, with James H. Fetzer, a distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group of college faculty members who believe conspirators other than pilots of the planes were directly involved in bringing down New York's Trade Towers.
The group, which Jones said has 200 members, maintains a Web site at www.st911.org. A 40-page paper by Jones, along with other peer-reviewed and non-reviewed academic papers, are posted on the site.
Last year, Jones presented various arguments for his theory that explosives or incendiary devices were planted in the Trade Towers, and in WTC 7, a smaller building in the Trade Center complex, and that those materials, not planes crashing into the buildings, caused the buildings to collapse.
At that time, he mentioned thermite as the possible explosive or incendiary agent. But Friday, he said he is increasingly convinced that thermite and sulfur were the root causes of the 9/11 disaster.
He told college professors and graduate students from throughout Utah gathered for the academy meeting that while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
He ticked off several pieces of evidence for his thermite fire theory:
First, he said, video showed a yellow, molten substance splashing off the side of the south Trade Tower about 50 minutes after an airplane hit it and a few minutes before it collapsed. Government investigators ruled out the possibility of melting steel being the source of the material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. The investigators said the molten material must have been aluminum from the plane.
But, said Jones, molten aluminum is silvery. It never turns yellow. The substance observed in the videos "just isn't aluminum," he said. But, he said, thermite can cause steel to melt and become yellowish.
Second, he cited video pictures showing white ash rising from the south tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite burns, Jones said, it releases aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white molten iron and aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a thermite reaction," he said.
Another item of evidence, Jones said, is the fact that sulfur traces were found in structural steel recovered from the Trade Towers. Jones quoted the New York Times as saying sulfidization in the recovered steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the (official) investigation." But, he said, sulfidization fits the theory that sulfur was combined with thermite to make the thermite burn even hotter than it ordinarily would.
Jones said a piece of building wreckage had a gray substance on the outside that at one point had obviously been a dripping molten metal or liquid. He said that after thermite turns steel or iron into a molten form, and the metal hardens, it is gray.
He added that pools of molten metal were found beneath both trade towers and the 47-story WTC 7. That fact, he said, was never discussed in official investigation reports.
And even though WTC 7 was not connected to the Trade Towers — in fact, there was another building between it and the towers —and even though it was never hit by a plane, it collapsed. That suggests, he said, that it came down because a thermite fire caused its structural steel to fail.
Jones said his studies are confined to physical causes of the collapses, and he doesn't like to speculate about who might have entered the buildings and placed thermite and sulfur. But he said 10 to 20 people "in the know," plus other people who didn't know what they were doing but did what they were told, could have placed incendiary packages over several weeks.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635198488,00.html

Another 9/11 to legitimize attack on Iran?
4/10/2006 2:30:00 PM GMT

Despite repetitively claiming that diplomacy is the first course for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Washington never ruled out using the military option against the Islamic republic to force it halt its nuclear activities.

And recently, Seymour Hersh, an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts, aroused concerns that the Bush administration is drawing up plans to use nuclear weapons against Tehran to knock down its nuclear program.

U.S., backed by the European Union and Israel, claims that Iran is secretly preparing to produce a nuclear bomb, charges that had been repeatedly denied by Tehran, which asserts that its nuclear activities solely focus on peaceful purposes.

In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq war, there are no disagreements within western intelligence about Iran’s nuclear activities, although the UN atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, never found evidence to prove claims that Iran’s nuclear program is used as a guise to produce nuclear weapons.

An editorial on Pravda, a former newspaper of the Soviet Union's Communist Party, suggests that Washington could 'stage another 9/11-like event' to justify the continued presence of its military bases in Iraq, challenging calls from the U.S. public to pull out troops from Iraq, and shift the angry Americans’ attention from the country’s economic crisis.

The editorial also speculates that the United States is finalizing plans to launch a military strike against Iran this year, saying that Washington had always sought to control the Middle East region as well as its oil wealth.

The only two countries that stood as an obstacle in Washington’s way of implementing this agenda were Iraq and Iran.

With Iraq, now devastated by war and ethnic tensions, Washington can guarantee it will remain impotent for the next decade. Iran now is the only obstacle in the way of this master plan.

Given the major decline in the Bush administration’s approval rating, and the pressure the American President is facing from his public, what could be more opportune for Bush than to stage another 9/11-like event, which will be followed by a “retaliation war”, this time against Iran? The editorial adds, however, it argues that another 9/11 attacks might not be necessary for Washington to justify another war in the region this time again Iran.

While their support for Iraq war is majorly dropping, more than half of Americans support launching war against Iran, according to recently conducted surveys.

But Americans are rejecting the situation and the Bush policies in Iraq, they don’t reject the war itself- the declining support for Iraq war is not a rejection of war itself, but a rejection of losing wars.

While the editorial argues that staging a 9/11 like attacks could be useful for the Bush administration to further its totalitarian ambitions, it suggests that staging such attacks, though it may occur anyway, is not necessary.

Attacking Iran will definitely help shift the attention of the world and the angry American public away from the U.S. government’s failures in Iraq, it will also divert the attention from the country’s fragile economy.

In case the U.S. attacks Iran, according to analysts, this would provoke the Islamic Republic to retaliate by aiding the Shias armed groups in Iraq.

It would also threaten the oil shipments passing through the Persian Gulf [Strait of Hormuz]. It will also result in soaring oil prices.

But Pravda’s editorial emphasizes that fearing a surge in oil prices and endangering lives of its soldiers in Iraq wouldn’t stop the U.S. from launching a war against Iran, given America’s deeply rooted ambitions to control the Middle East oil, regardless of the cost.

Recalling Pearl Harbor during World War II, the article says the U.S. knew that Japan was planning for an attack, however it let it happen, it even cleared flight path for the Japanese attackers. So why would endangering the lives of a few thousands of American soldier stationed in Iraq be much of a concern to the U.S.?

With its army stretched thin in Iraq, the U.S. can only attack Iran by air, however such attack wouldn’t be effective if limited to "military" targets, but it would be a good initial step for U.S. which hopes to turn it to a larger war.

The only way for the U.S. to defeat Iran is dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on its civilian population- this is the only thing that would force the Islamic Republic to surrender to save the lives of its people.

Bush's admin would use the worldwide growing economic problems due to the shortage of oil as a justification that Iran must be stopped, no matter what cost.

To calm the world’s outcry that would be sparked if it used nuclear bombs against Iran, just as it did in Japan 60 years ago, the U.S. would use the same justification, that this was needed to put an end to the war.

Publicly, President Bush and members of his administration claim that they’re committed to diplomacy to solve the current standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, bwith Russia intending to veto any decision threatening Iran, the Bush administration might be seriously considering unilateral military action.
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11080

Red Flags
Leaps of Faith Required to Accept the Official Story

There are many red flags in the official story of September 11th that passed right by the vast majority of people. Not the least is that the official story was so quick to emerge. Within hours of the attack Osama bin Laden was presented as the prime suspect. His picture was repeatedly shown on TV alongside images of the devastation in Lower Manhattan, a technique known as Pavlovian conditioning. A list of most of the hijackers was presented within a day of the attack. Mohammed Atta was presented as the ringleader within hours. The curious building "collapses" in Manhattan were immediately claimed to be inevitable. The "case closed" technical paper about the building collapses was published on September 13th, two days after the attack.

Some of the other red flags include:

* The hijacked flights all flew long routes taking them far from their targets exposing them to certain interception given standard operating procedures.
* The towering infernos were said to burn with the heat of nuclear power plants, despite sooty black smoke and few visible flames.
* The building collapses were presented as inevitable, even though such behavior was unheard of in steel structures.
* Flight 93 was confidently portrayed as a crash due to a struggle, despite strong evidence it was shot down.
* An extensive paper trail of the hijackers was found within hours of the attack, even though the same people had supposedly eluded authorities for years.
* The same hijackers who pulled off aerobatic maneuvers with large jets were flight school flunkies who had never flown jets.
* The FBI claimed that the passport from one of Flight 11's hijackers was found blocks from the towers (when the only other parts of the jetliner that penetrated the tower were a few pieces of landing gear).
* Several hijackers turned up alive after the attack.
* 1000 bodies vanished at Ground Zero, despite DNA identification procedures that could identify individuals from small fragments of bodies.
* Flight 77 crashed into Wedge 1 of the Pentagon -- the one portion of the building that was sparsely occupied due to undergoing renovations, which included blast-hardening of the exterior walls.
* The supposedly fanatically devout Muslim hijackers were fond of strip bars.
* The video of Osama bin Laden that has him taking credit for the attack doesn't even look like him.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/index.html

Short video "1500 degree metal" six weeks after !
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w...ground.zero.wmv

A short 2 minute video on the Norad / FAA stand down.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.stand.down.wmv

What did they do with that steel?
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w...ence.cut.up.wmv

CBS view on 9-11 (Dan Rather) commenting on WTC7.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w...nocked.down.wmv

Foreknowledge of the second building comming down?

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w...coming.down.wmv

Very interesting interview with Guiliani and Peter Jennings.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....was.warned.wmv

Note the Stuff comming out from the corner of the building in the clip.
It looks similar to someone using a cutting torch.

Jeff, if your reading this ? this clip would be of interest to you.
Navagating equipment? CNN clip!
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w...nt.cnn.wabc.asx

A man called David Limbaugh (not Rush) wrote an article accusing the liberals of first saying that Bush was too dumb and then saying that he was the opposite. The article (post 21) reminded me of that. It is quite possible for an administration to use a cover of 'dumb and stupid', fool most people, keep it up for the 9/11 Commission farce; and then turn out to be extremely evil and clever. The fact that the liberals would not consider Bush evil from the start is only proof that they are not as disingenuous as the republicans. They call it how they see it. They may not be correct at first, but they get there in the end. It is not really a question of who is cleverer liberals (whatever that means and I think it generally refers to 'communist') or the republicans? - most people who question 9/11 seem, to me, to be libertarians or non-partisan people. The real question is who is the more evil of the two. The Rebublicans seem to win hands down.

Throwing a different media to the medium. Absorbing.



120min clip asserting government involvement in 9/11/01: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...&q=loose+change

Kristen Breitweiser
Taking It to the Streets--A.M.E.N

I am sitting home watching cnn international and witnessing the illegal immigrant marches being staged across our country. Impressive.

What I find ironic is that these men, women, and children are not even American citizens, and yet they have galvanized, mobilized, and organized their sentiments to create quite a movement. Even more impressive is that these protestors are here illegally and risk the real threat of being herded up, detained, and deported while participating in such mass protests.
And yet, they are out there in the streets having their voices heard. Without taking a stand on the immigration issue in this blog, I will say that I admire their incredible unity and courage.

As a 9/11 activist who has tried in vain for the past four years to wake Americans up to the sad and dangerous state of affairs in this country, I have never seen such a well organized and massive turnout.

To me, it is a shame that so many American citizens seem to have lost the passion of their beliefs. Our country is literally going to hell in a handbasket and nobody takes to the streets, nobody organizes a rally/march/sit-in/walkout, etc.

Frankly, I would love to know who organized and got the illegal immigrant population out into the streets of America practicing our democracy. Because, to me, we Americans have a few things to learn from them.

They are willing to make their collective voices a force to be reckoned with. They will be heard by our Congress and President. And most likely Congress and President Bush will be forced to reconcile the immigration issue. When that happens, the immigrant population will have had a much larger effect on our country and our president than any of the rest of us full-blooded American citizens who only seem to be able to cobble together piecemeal activist platforms.

My thoughts? I think we should all come together and have our voices heard. If you are unhappy about healthcare, come join us. If you are unhappy about social security, come join us. If you are unhappy about education issues, come join us. If you are unhappy about foreign policy and national security, come join us. If you are unhappy about environmental issues and alternative energy issues, come join us. If you are unhappy about corruption, secrecy, and lack of accountability in government, come join us. If you are unhappy about campaign finance reform, come join us...

The time has come for all American citizens who are unhappy with this current Congress and Administration to join together in our one common belief--that our country needs to change and that we must spark that change. A. M. E. N. *

But hey, since we are in the habit of "outsourcing" our nation (think port security, debt, etc.), maybe we should just outsource our protests, too? Because, demonstrably, they seem to be doing a much better job than us.

* Americans Must Engage Now-->to be continued...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-brei...ts_b_18843.html

"[Given] the likelihood of increased terror attacks in the US and Europe that would likely occur in the event of US/Israeli military attacks on Iran, those of us who believe that 9/11 was an inside job (not to mention London, Jordan, Madrid, Bali, etc,) cannot help but be put in mind of the changed political atmosphere that is very likely one of the objectives of US/Israeli policy. While the current climate would not seem conducive to a repeat of a 9/11-style attack in the US (what Rumsfeld calls 10/12), once a wider war is jump-started in the Middle East in 2006, another inside job is more feasible."

-- Ronald Bleier, at http://dysbushtopia.blogspot.com/2005/12/j...ar-iran-in.html

Mr. Bush, We Know What You Did That Summer!

There are two groups of people in this world: those who believe the official explanation of the events of September 11th, 2001, and those who have examined the evidence and realize that the official version of events is totally unbelievable.

An Open Letter to: Mr. George W. Bush, Mr. Richard Cheney, Members of PNAC and your supporting cast:

Guess what? WE KNOW WHAT YOU DID THAT SUMMER - that long ago time of innocence before the events of September 11th, 2001. We know what you did, and the game is over - even though you don’t yet know it.. The work of the independent 9/11 researchers is paying off. The evidence is steamrolling through the information super highway and is now creeping into the clogged arteries of the mainstream media. We may not know every detail and we may not agree on your individual motives, but two facts are now irrefutable: the official story of what happened on September 11th is not true and you were involved.

Somebody, somewhere does not like you guys anymore. Somebody, somewhere has given the corporate media the OK to open the one topic that has been totally verboten up till now. Somebody, somewhere has made it permissible for hints to be dropped into the public arena.. Those hints - which focus on the reasonable suspicion that has been raised about the attacks of 9/11 - have been well received. The cover-up is disintegrating slowly but surely.

Books and documentaries are now trickling into the awareness of the general population. That trickle is turning into a steady flow that will increase every time a new set of eyes is opened to the evidence that has been amassed. Until now, the mainstream media have been the hull of the vessel that has kept the official conspiracy theory afloat. But now, for the first time, that vessel is sinking under the weight of its own lies. At this very moment, because of the distortions and secrets of the official version of 9/11, you all are beginning to drown in your own pool of lies.

Understand that this is not a case of people having different opinions as to what happened that day. This is a terribly serious situation in which some people accepted your version of 9/11 because you frightened them into doing so. They believed everything you said without asking for any corroborating evidence because you asked them to take your word as the Gospel truth. But other people looked at what you told them and began to ask common sense questions about the holes you left in the official story. They could not understand why you refused to allow a bipartisan, impartial investigation into the events of that day. They realized that the Kean Commission, formed a year after the attacks, was NOT charged with finding out what really happened. They realized that this commission was there to document your official story, regardless of how it conflicted with the evidence that had been unearthed. This second group refused to sit back and ignore what was being revealed by scholars and other experts among them, and they continued investigating this most fateful day for themselves.

Keep in mind the large majority of Americans were completely unaware there were any questions at all being raised about your official story. You guys did a yeoman’s job of getting the corporate media to do your dirty work. You got them to repeatedly report the bogus elements of the story you wanted us to accept. They did that for the better part of four and a half years, but now their shell game is over because they are no longer relevant. The independent 9/11 Truth community has bypassed your conduits to the public. Finally, researchers, authors, scientists, film makers and real journalists have assumed the role of protecting our nation from enemies domestic and it is only a matter of time before your little story is all but a bloodstain on the history files of the ruling elite.

If you don’t believe this, here’s something that will open your eyes. Get a hold of the many fine documentaries on the topic such as Loose Change 2 (click here to watch this documentary for free.) This documentary, despite its few minor flaws and disputable assertions, lays out a sampling of the unquestionably damning evidence that has been gathered. None of this evidence is speculation or accusation; it is in fact part of public record and will be hitting 300 movie screens come September. It will be viewed at even more college campus events around the nation in the moths leading to the anniversary date of the attacks you have so deftly covered up.

And, just to unnerve you a bit more, at this very moment, thanks to the generosity of researchers, documentarians and individual citizens of the world, informative DVDs and books that expose the truth about 9/11 are finding their way into the hands of police officers, fire fighters, members of the military, politicians and even members of the media.

You guys aught to wake up and deal with the reality that it is only a matter of time. You can run from the truth only so long as you can keep the public from examining the evidence. And thanks to the hard work of some dedicated patriots ( a group of which I am proud to be a part), the cloak of media deception that has hidden the truth of 9/11 is being pulled aside. The truth is out there now and we are succeeding beyond all our expectations in exposing your lies.

And so, Mr.Bush, Mr. Cheney, PNAC cabal, and supporters: WE KNOW WHAT YOU DID THAT SUMMER! We know it, and you know it, but we are not going to rest for a single moment until every one else knows too!

From a patriot and a citizen of the world who wants his democracy back.
Jesse - Editor, TvNewsLIES.org
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=351

Suit: $100M Missing From WTC Brokerage
The Associated Press
Thursday, Nov. 8, 2001; 7:57 a.m. EST

NEW YORK –– More than $100 million from accounts handled by a World Trade Center brokerage was discovered missing in the days after the terrorist attack, according to a lawsuit.

The suit brought by Dirk Karreman, of Queensland, Australia, accuses First Equity Enterprises owner Andre Koudachev and other executives of "spending or absconding (with the money) to a presently unknown location."

The $108 million belongs to 1,400 investors in 14 countries, according to several foreign news accounts. Karreman claims he lost about $2 million and is seeking that amount in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages.

According to court papers filed Wednesday, executives informed a trader 11 days after the terrorist attack that Koudachev had disappeared with the investors' money and "they were never going to see him again."

The executives allegedly tried to enlist the trader in a cover-up; he instead reported the case to authorities, the court papers said.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Brooklyn confirmed that prosecutors have started an investigation into the missing money. No one has been charged.

Koudachev is a Russian citizen who has lived in Moscow for the past two years, said his attorney, Nathaniel Marmur. He left New York shortly after the Sept. 11 attack destroyed the brokerage's 15th-floor offices at the trade center.

"He is disappointed and concerned with the apparent loss of investor funds and is hopeful that every effort will be made to recover them," the attorney said.

Problems mount from 9/11 fallout
By David Shukman
BBC News science correspondent

The number of people with medical problems linked to the 9/11 attacks on New York has risen to at least 15,000.

The figure, put together for the BBC, counts those receiving treatment for problems related to breathing in dust.

Many of the victims say the government offered false reassurances that the Manhattan air was safe and are now pursuing a class-action lawsuit.

On Tuesday, a coroner said the death of a policeman who developed a respiratory disease was "directly linked" to 9/11.

James Zadroga - who worked at Ground Zero - died in January. The New Jersey coroner's ruling was the first of its kind.

WTC 'cough'
Jeff Endean used to be the macho leader of a police Swat firearms team. Now, he has trouble breathing and survives on the cocktail of drugs he takes every day.

Kelly Colangelo, an IT specialist, used to have good health but now endures a range of problems including asthma and sinus pain.

"It worried me that I've been damaging my health just being in my home," she told the BBC News website. "It also worries me that I see the health impact on the [the emergency crews at the scene]. We were also exposed and I wonder if in 10-15 years from now, am I going to be another victim?"

Both are victims of what used to be called "World Trade Center cough", an innocuous sounding condition that many thought would pass once the dust that rose from the attacks of 9/11 had blown away.

But the medical problems have not merely intensified; the list of victims has grown alarmingly at the same time.

The apparent cause? The long line of contaminants carried by the dust into the lungs of many of those at, or near, the scene on that fateful day.

'Real' figure
One list of sufferers has been compiled at the Mount Sinai Medical Center. Its World Trade Center Screening Programme has 16,000 people on its books, of whom about half - 8,000 - require treatment.
A further 7,000 firefighters are recorded as having a wide range of medical problems, producing a total of 15,000. But the overall numbers affected could easily be far higher.

As the US government's newly appointed "health czar" John Howard confirmed to the BBC, there were between 30,000 and 50,000 people at or near Ground Zero who might have been exposed to the hazardous dust and no one really knows how many are suffering problems now.

Consisting of billions of microscopic particles, the dust was especially toxic because of its contents.

A grim list includes lead from 50,000 computers, asbestos from the twin towers' structures and dangerously high levels of alkalinity from the concrete.

Long time
Many of the people now suffering were sent to Ground Zero to help search for survivors. Others volunteered. Still more just happened to be living or working in the area.

The latter feel particularly aggrieved, even betrayed.

In the days following the attacks, the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that monitoring operations had proved the "air was safe to breathe". And with that reassurance, the authorities reopened the globally important financial hub of Wall Street.

At the time it was seen as a critical morale-booster to a wounded nation.
Yet now the federal courts have allowed a class-action lawsuit to be filed against those very authorities.

Last month, a judge described the EPA's reassurances as "misleading" and "shocking the conscience". The legal process could last years.

A special report on the dust fallout from the 9/11 attacks will be featured on BBC World starting on Wednesday 3 May at 1930 GMT. The documentary will also be carried on BBC News 2

I realize this is a site for "believers" only, but I was wondering what was being said by this group in response to the tapes played of the audio inside Flight 93 at the Moussaoui trial today. I don't see anyone mentioning it.

The use of the word "believers" in this context is interesting and amusing.

As a Christian, I was raised to believe that Christ born of a virginal mother, was fathered by God, and was risen on the third day after his death to return at some point in the future. Of this, there is little proof. We are asked to believe, to have faith.

As a Taoist, I am taught that the universe is a single unity that operates through cycles within cycles. This I can see for myself.

As an American, I am told that Iraq had WMD's and that our troops would be greeted with flowers, that Bush was never briefed on the critical importance of the levees in New Orleans, and that the President would deal severely with those who leaked the identities of covert agents. Time has taught us what is true.

Do you suggest that the tapes somehow suddenly prove the official story?

The release 4.5 years later of audiotapes from flight recorders, in a show trial of someone who was not directly involved in or responsible for 9/11 by a government that has gone out of its way continually and continuously to avoid questions about what happened before and during 9/11, does not constitute something worthy of much comment.

In fact, if you were to ask almost any serious question of a key government official about 9/11, you'd likely get "no comment".

Of greater importance are the following:

-- the 9/11 timelines which are universally well-regarded and which have been meticulously constructed in an open and collaborative process and which can be found at the www.cooperativeresearch.org web site;

-- the web sites maintained at http://www.911review.com/ and its companion site http://911research.wtc7.net/;

-- the 9/11 Commission report, and its numerous critiques;

-- a wide array of research done by numerous groups but which has not yet been fully vetted nor coalesced into a coherent picture except as above;

-- the countless questions which remain unanswered;

-- the existent and undeniable efforts by the US government, starting with the President and the Vice President, to deny, prevent, stall or water down any investigative efforts;

-- the almost total lack of formal follow-up by key US investigative agencies, some of which is required by law;

--the numerous examples of concerted efforts, some from within the government and some from other sources, to create misleading information, or disinformation, and to characterize any effort to inquire into these issues and questions as the work of those not in full posession of their faculties;

-- the existence of government-linked articles and web sites which are an attempt to confuse, and to weaken any effort to understand what may have happened;

-- significant indication of the purposeful use of PsyOps, propaganda, and government agents masquerading as journalists;

-- significant indication of the existence of technologies which could arguably have been used in the creation of "legends", myths, audiotapes, videotapes, and other elements of the 9/11 story;

-- clear evidence of crimes committed during 9/11 for which no one has been prosecuted at all, let alone successfully (don't include the current show trial, for the defendant pled guilty, and there are indicators he may have done so under duresss);

-- no indictment of the individual we were led to believe was the chief planner and perpetrator;

-- significant indications that the "perpetrators" were employed by, aided by, or trained by agencies of the US government;

-- numerous indications that our military chain of command was not present for duty, including the President, the Secretary of Defense, and others;

-- strong indications that the Vice President played an extra-Constitutional role in that chain of command (a point noted by the 9/11 Commission), and specific and detailed indications that he was directlyinvolved and complicit;

-- a long chain of indicators that US inteligence agencies were very much aware of the threat well in advance of the event;

-- extensive evidence that numerous people in law enforcement and intelligence roles were gagged, disciplined, punished, re-assigned or worse when they stepped forward with key information;

-- bucket-loads of information and evidence that is not consistent with the "official story";

-- indicators that many officials and military officeers of foreign governments, as well as this one, believe that 9/11 was an inside job; and

-- indicators that a plurality, if not a majority, of Americans also don't believe the "official story".


So, if I understand your point, Teacher, do you want me to accept a bit of evidence produced 55 months after the event by a government that has consistently lied about many things and which refuses to enable, cooperate with, or tolerate any questions, inquiries or investigations?

Should I take this bit of audiotape on the basis of belief? Or as an article of faith?