Richard Ben-Veniste said the following to Condoleezza Rice the following question during her appearance before the 9/11 Commission:

"The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well documented, and Richard Clarke's testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well documented. You acknowledged that Richard Clarke told you that Al-Qaeda cells were in the United States.

(or watch the video).

The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".

The CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected" according to a broadcast on National Public Radio

Traitor Kos (rhymes with Trader Joe's)

Left Gatekeeper: (noun) Someone who pretends to be liberal or progressive in order to achieve credibility and a following among those holding views considered liberal or progressive. They then use their influence to discourage discussion or consideration of any information or ideas damaging to the ruling class, such as the truth about 9/11, thus drawing an artificial line that people will avoid crossing and controlling discussion of things that actually matter and could disrupt the status quo. Examples: Noam Chomsky, Arianna Huffington, Michael Moore, Amy Goodman, and of course, the Daily Kos.

From the Daily Kos FAQ:

Controversial 9/11 Diaries

DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

It was recently reported that "Henry Kissinger has been advising President Bush and Vice President Cheney about Iraq, telling them that "victory is the only meaningful exit strategy," author and journalist Bob Woodward said."

Henry Kissinger was also Bush's first choice to head the 9/11 Commission.

I thought it was important that people see this movie.

Analyze and discuss.. O-t-N

MOUSSAOUI TRIAL DOCUMENTS SHOW FBI WITHELD EVIDENCE IN 9/11 COVER-UP

WORLD EXCLUSIVE madcowprod.com
Oct 04, 2006--Venice,FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker

Recently-released court documents from the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui show clear evidence of the FBI attempt to cover-up the whereabouts and activities of lead 9.11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Florida between January and May of 2001, confirming reports which have appeared exclusively in the MadCowMorningNews.

Released over government objection through the efforts of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the documents illustrate the pattern of omission and selective editing through which the Bureau has deflected attention from the terrorist's conspiracy's base of operations in Venice FL.

Four months after the FBI's official chronology states Mohamed Atta left Florida's Gulf Coast for the Miami area, Atta was still using a Venice-area cell phone.

And these four months worth of Atta's phone calls are not listed or included in the released cell phone records.

The documents also give the lie to continuing attempts by the terrorists’ hometown paper, the New York Times-owned Sarasota Herald-Tribune, to salvage its lackluster record in covering the story of the dozens of suspected terrorists living cheek-by-jowl in its midst by invalidating the testimony of a key witness, uncritically presenting her recantation as if witnesses being pressured to change their stories were not a daily fact of life.

Did you see this? It is a month old already, but it may have slipped everyone's attention:

"[...] we, the National Security Whistleblowers, want to go on record
one more time to reiterate the significant issues and cases that were
duly reported to the 9/11 commission by those of us from the intelligence,
aviation, and law enforcement communities, but ended up being censored
and omitted."

Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver enumerate 13 whistleblowers by name who have attempted to testify their knowledge before the now infamous "Ommission Commission". Their details are mindboggling. None of their people were called into hearings by the Commission's own initiative; all of them had to insist being heard and interviewed. Most failed to get a hearing -- and those who did, have seen their testimonies omitted in the final report.. This is truely smashing evidence for a cover up job being well executed by the commission.

Hmm.... maybe I better reproduce a full copy of the original publication in here (with some added highlighting by myself), so it gets wider circulation: (Has this ever been picked up by DailyKos and similar "alternative" outlets?)

The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts

by Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver

A wag once famously said that Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot was a play where nothing happened… twice. The two former co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have released a new book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. This book goes Beckett one better – it is the third act of veneer over substance, self-aggrandizement over serious analysis, and cliché over perspicacity. It is another calculated attempt by the former commissioners to place themselves in the media spotlight, and to overcome the humiliation of their widely criticized and mostly debunked report. It is a vapid and substanceless attempt to claim moral high ground and present the cochairmen as heroes of honesty. It would be a farce, except that it has no story line, save the aggrandizement of the authors. At least they are consistent in doing nothing and proclaiming that to be a sign of their devotion to the country and the government. Beckett once said that "habit is the ballast that chains the dog to its vomit," and by this measure the chain restraining Kean and Hamilton is a short one indeed.

(more after the jump..)

If it's not breaking any board guidlines, I would like to post some of my favoutie photos, which I have collected over the years. God that sounds awful, for those who have been truthlings since day one. We need to wrap this up, guys, it's been five years.

The evidence that the government has covered up and whitewashed what really occurred on 9/11 is overwhelming.

For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.

And the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

The short answer is to ignore it. The simple act of acknowledging a fake reality by contesting it immediately raises its mass from 0 to something capable of germinating and sprouting legs. Lesson number 1 in the reality wars is never acknowledge the fake reality unless you have to for some reason, i.e. because it is being acknowledged by enough other people that your ignoring it raises questions. The 9/11 perps, who would like to give the impression that their guilt in their own conspiracy is itself a fake reality tried that for a while and having failed, switched to the less ideal strategy of contesting it. Truthers, who know the OT to be a fake reality, never had the luxury of ignoring it--this is the advantage that goes to White in chess, that of making the first move. Our moves in response to the first move however can realistically involve ignoring some aspects of the OT's fake reality, especially those that are added daily in support of the teetering OT. Some of these are easy to ignore, like the distractions of pedophiles and child murderers. These are tragedies, sure, but they do not rise to the level of national importance that begs for front page coverage. Others, like a new "al Qaeda" tape du jour, are trickier since ignoring them runs the risk of allowing the public to add it, as the perps would like, to the support structure for their own realities that are by now pretty much dependent on the OT. In order to determine whether or not to dignify a piece of disinfo with a response, we should weigh the potential effectiveness of it in the construction of our adversaries' fake reality.

By Jon Gold

I saw someone mention tonight the fact that the Secret Service didn't bother to protect the President on 9/11, and this question occurred to me. "Did the President receive "Air Cover" at any time during his time at Booker Elementary?"

So, I set out to see when the President received "Air Cover." It made sense to me that during a time when America was "under attack" from kamikaze hijackers in commercial airliners, that the President of the United States would receive "Air Cover." Especially considering there was an international airport not 5 miles away. Makes sense, right?

Thanks to Paul Thompson's GREAT WORK, I found the following:

(More after the jump..)

Harry Samit is a Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent based out of the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is a former United States Navy naval aviator, Naval Intelligence Officer, and a certified private pilot. He is most noted for arresting Zacarias Moussaoui on August 16, 2001.

Samit became aware of Moussaoui because of Clancy Prevost [1], a certified flight instructor at the Pan-Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota. Moussaoui had enrolled for training in a 747-400 simulator at the school on August 13 but his behavior during instruction alarmed Prevost, who did not believe that Moussaoui was just a wealthy individual interested in flying jumbo jets. At Prevost's urging, the flight school contacted the Minneapolis FBI Field Office, and Samit was one of the special agents assigned to investigate Moussaoui.

Moussaoui was arrested by Samit for a visa violation on August 16 but, because the arrest was effected outside the Residence Inn where Moussaoui had been staying, Samit had no legal right to search the hotel room and its contents without Moussaoui's consent. Moussaoui denied consent, so Samit could only search Moussaoui and his car. Samit found a small knife in Moussaoui's left pocket and another knife in the car.[2]

mmmm.....

Juicy tidbits here, as well as lots of finger pointing and distancing, eh?

"Ashcroft also writes that the commission's hearings "were not so much about discovering the truth as they were about assessing blame and grandstanding," adding that they "degenerated into show trials."

"Ashcroft "may very well have been the worst witness we interviewed," he said, adding he was "very unresponsive and unhelpful.""
-- GOP Commissioner Slade Gorton

"The day prior to Ashcroft's testimony, the man who had been acting FBI director throughout the summer of 2001, Thomas Pickard, told the commission that Ashcroft had told him during a briefing covering counter-terrorism that "he did not want to hear about this anymore," and had refused a request for additional funding for FBI counter-terrorist activities."

Yet Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft in the weeks preceeding 9/11 in response to a warning given by DCI George Tenet!

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20061005-052222-3483r

Analysis: Ashcroft blasts 9-11 Commission
By SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 (UPI) -- Former Attorney General John Ashcroft this week became the only Cabinet-level Bush official to attack the Sept. 11 Commission, writing in his memoirs it "seemed obsessed with trying to lay the blame for the terrorist attacks at the feet of the Bush administration, while virtually absolving the previous administration of responsibility."

According a Belgian website http://www.hln.be/hlns/cache/det/art_270756.html?wt.bron=homeArt1 a certain mollah Maasum Afghani, president of the board of oelama's (whatever that may be) of the Taliban warns all Mulsims to leave the USA as soon as possible because "God will punish the USA" This will possibly take place on the 17th day of the Ramadan. According to the website this is coming Monday but according to me this is on Tuesday. (because of the time difference between Afghanistan and the USA?) Could this be the announcement of a new fals flag operation in order to be able to attack Iran and make Bush the first official dictator of the USA?

I can remember back in the summer of 2001, as the country was all-consumed by the Gary Condit scandal, dark and ominous clouds were gathering on the horizon and reports were leaking from around the world that Al Qaeda was planning some sort of catastrophic attack against American “symbols” of power.

I can remember reports that the US military was on Delta Alert (the highest state of alert - short of open warfare). I can remember Diane Feinstein’s warnings on the Sunday morning talk shows of an impending attack. I can remember the Jerusalem Post’s article predicting a major attack. I can remember my state of alarm as it appeared that the raging violence in Israeli’s occupied territories, and the nearly daily suicide bombings, were accelerating towards some crescendo on the world stage.

Yet, night after night, we were treated to the Gary Condit news hour on each of the major networks. It indeed appeared that there was no other news but the Gary Condit scandal.

And then 9/11 happened, and no one has heard very much about Gary Condit ever since.

A few months back while Israel was mercilessly bombarding Lebanon (the just recently newly-celebrated seat of democracy in the Middle East) we suddenly found our attentions drawn to the bazaar tale of Mark Karr, the confessed killer of Jon Benet Ramsey. The media became transfixed on the lurid details of Mark Karr’s past, with Karr’s ultra-creepy face and blank stare radiating out from every newspaper tabloid and TV news hour in the nation, despite the incredible lack of CREDIBLE evidence that Mark Karr could possibly be Jon Benet’s killer, including DNA evidence that amazing was not produced for weeks, as Karr was flown first-class back to the United States and was photographed sipping champagne.

As a crossroads of elitism, intellect, and tourism, Harvard Square affords a truther the opportunity to inject truth "directo a la vena" or straight to the vein, of the power elite and their groupies. Often incorrectly described as ultra-liberal (the Kremlin on the Charles) the Harvard community is in fact a mish mosh of generally acquiescent would-be ladder climbers from any and all acceptable mainstream political currents. Behind the ivy laced brick veneer, a battle rages for the heart and soul of Harvard--will it focus on teaching or the more lucrative research that brings in $400 million a year in federal funds? Does raising money trump integrity, as when Harvard recently accepted a $10 million gift from the co-founder of the Carlyle Group? Can prestige co-exist with the disgrace of looters like Prof. Andrei Schleifer who retains his teaching post even after Harvard was forced to pay millions in damages to the government for Schleifer's tawdry insider dealings in Russia? Will professors of absurd and outrageous conspiracy theories continue to be allowed to teach impressionable youngsters their twisted views of the events of 9/11 and Islamofascism, as Professor of History and senior adviser to the Zelikow coverup commission Ernest May currently does in his course on 9/11? Will Harvard's student paper, a breeding ground for New York Times wannabes continue to follow the path of Judith Miller's employer into journalistic irrelevance? Will the sophomore who was praised for her precocious book contract before it was discovered that she plagiarized huge parts of her book graduate on time and with honors?

A Corrupted Election
Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls were right
By Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf

Recall the Election Day exit polls that suggested John Kerry had won a convincing victory? The media readily dismissed those polls and little has been heard about them since.

Many Americans, however, were suspicious. Although President Bush prevailed by 3 million votes in the official, tallied vote count, exit polls had projected a margin of victory of 5 million votes for Kerry. This unexplained 8 million vote discrepancy between the election night exit polls and the official count should raise a Chinese May Day of red flags.

The U.S. voting system is more vulnerable to manipulation than most Americans realize. Technologies such as electronic voting machines provide no confirmation that votes are counted as cast, and highly partisan election officials have the power to suppress votes and otherwise distort the count.

Exit polls are highly accurate. They remove most of the sources of potential polling error by identifying actual voters and asking them immediately afterward who they had voted for.

The reliability of exit polls is so generally accepted that the Bush administration helped pay for them during recent elections in Georgia, Belarus and Ukraine. Testifying before the House Committee on International Relations Dec. 7, John Tefft, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, explained that the Bush administration funded exit polls because they were one of the “ways that would help to expose large-scale fraud.” Tefft pointed to the discrepancy between exit polls and the official vote count to argue that the Nov. 22 Ukraine election was stolen.