9/11 Truth on National Intel Report


Tue., February 7, 2006: Playlists: M3U| RAM (Individual MP3s: Hr1 Hr2)
2nd Hour Guest: Professor David Ray Griffin

Mon., February 6, 2006: Playlists: M3U | RAM (Individual MP3s: Hr1 Hr2)
Guests: Karl Schwarz

Haven't heard these yet, but here is a quick rundown of what is supposed to be on the Karl Schwarz interview:

Chronology has caught many criminals so consider:

1989 – the architects and engineers were working on a plan to erect scaffolding and take the buildings down one floor at a time to remedy asbestos and structural defects due to galvanic corrosion.

1991 – the PANY&NJ commences litigation seeking $500 million to $1 billion for asbestos removal.

1993, February 26 – World Trade Center bombing by Islamic terrorists. Many have written that it appears that the FBI let this bombing happen. This attack could have been to seek insurance company funds, which is what the Port Authority was after any way in the lawsuit during this exact period in time.

2000, September 12 – the Port Authority issues bids for removal of asbestos.

2000, October 17 – WTC bids due to remove asbestos

May 14, 2001 – the 3rd Circuit US Court of Appeals rules in favor of the insurers that they are not liable.

July 24, 2001 – Larry Silverstein signs the 99 year lease on WTC.

September 11, 2001 – both WTC towers lay in rubble, the demolition accomplished. Mission Accomplished.

November 14, 2002 – 3rd Circuit upholds Judge Bissell’s decision that the insurers are not liable for asbestos claims.

February 5, 2004 - Jury Set For World Trade Center Insurance Case - Feb 05, 2004; A Manhattan federal judge yesterday named five women and seven men to a jury in the $7 billion legal fight between developer Larry Silverstein and his Twin Towers insurance companies. (New York Post)

December 6, 2004 – Silverstein wins jury award for $2.2 billion in insurance payments.

James Redford, give it a

James Redford, give it a breake!
I agree with DZ, drop the topic and keep to the point.

This issue will not gain on credibility with beeing lumped together on all possible "leftish" views.

The most effective way to discredit this topic and the concerns of people engaged in this "fight for truth", is to flood it with posts from fanatic consiprationists. Is saw the link to your .pdf-file. How relevant is that here?

Please remember that one of the points here suggests that there are people who try to make us enemies with muslims through staging terrorist acts and blaming them on muslims. In the same way one could discredit this kind of website through staging posts from funamental conspirationists.

NN, if anyone in this thread

NN, if anyone in this thread is guilty of trying (whether intentionally or not) to discredit the cause of truth by acting as if one is on its side, it is you.

"Funamental conspirationists"? Who talks like this? "Conspirationist" isn't even a word. I'll pass on commenting on your typo preceeding this non-word, other than this sentence's comment.

Nor do I believe in any conspiracy theories, such as the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, a-historical, a-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks.

Rather, I believe in facts, some of which facts involve conspiracy.

That was awful.

That was awful.

Yes, dz, Heaven forefend

Yes, dz, Heaven forefend that institutions hosting an .edu ISP address should actually be open-minded, and actually be interested in genuine education. We mustn't offend such institutions with frank and honest discussion, since such institutions are quite unaccustomed to said discussion. (And no, the foregoing is not complete sarcasm, as you are correct that such institutions are indeed quite adverse to the truth.)

And while although my comments which you deleted did not directly concern the topic of the 9/11 attacks, they were quite relevant to the discussion in which they pertained to. They were in response to the sarcastic comments made by "Anonymous." So people can accuse me of bad things, and imply bad things about me, but when I post my response proving them wrong their post remains intact, yet mine gets deleted.

At any rate, society's fundamental problems cannot improve if we keep promoting this adversion to truth. The reason being is because the fundamental problem *is* the adversion to truth. The U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks are merely one among many symptoms of that. In that regard, my comments (in response to another, I here add again) were quite relevant to the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks.

dz, below is my response to

dz, below is my response to you from a thread from about a week ago (See http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/113865529041627203/ ). I posted the below in said thread just alwhile ago, but I post it here also so that you will have a better chance of seeing my below reply, and so also that others may know where I'm coming from, given your dishonest remarks and deletion that make me out to be a fag-basher when nothing could be further from the truth.

James, i deleted your post about 'faggots', 'pussy', and 'fucking'. keep that shit on your own site, or somewhere else, and please cut down the length and/or freqency of the massive floods of links..

play nice people, id like to keep these comments on topic, or at least friendly.

dz | Homepage | 02.01.06 - 8:34 pm | #

No thanks, dz. How dare you! Sure, you have a right to delete anything you want off of your own website, but my comment about myself being a faggot was in response to the below comment by someone else. And your post above "explaining" your deletion makes it seem as if I were saying something negative about faggots!

How dare you! Talk about intellectual dishonesty!

I posted earlier also. I have a tape called Evil Communications featuring Bill Schnoebelen, an ex-Mason. He says that these guys (32 or 33 degree or higher) bring demons home with them, which brings all kinds of discord to their families, including infertility, disease and homosexuality. So happens, my Mom died of pancreatic cancer, my Sister can't have kids, and I'm Gay.
Anonymous | 01.31.06 - 4:57 pm | #

James, You could have just


You could have just emailed me, I typically don't have time to read every comment on the site.

As for deleting the post, I saw your post with the words i quoted, checked the link which went to some forum talking about 'ultimate fucking techniques' (paraphrasing) and i deleted it.

if you had issue with me deleting your post you could have contacted me directly instead of trying to make it a scene, or put me on the defensive.

if you would like to clarify what exactly was going on, or continue this conversation please email me directly via the contact panel on the left.

dz, the whole point of me

dz, the whole point of me posting that was so that others, too, may know where I am coming from. Not just you. You made it out as if I was a fag-basher when nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted others to know the truth about the matter.


The reason I posted the above link in the article of mine that you deleted was to let people know more about myself--since "Anonymous," whom I was responding to, was making it out as if one had to be an uptight prude if one is anti-Freemasonry. I was just demonstrating to him that that is not the case at all.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter.Edited By Siteowner

James, I didnt intend to


I didnt intend to make you look like a 'fag-basher', I only intended to tell you why the comment was deleted.

So, just so we are clear, any future posts about your 'technique' will be removed in the future as it has nothing to do with the subject matter of 9/11, could discourage new visitors from returning, and could land this site on blacklists and web bans for offensive sexual material for unnecessary reasons. Seeing as how a decent amount of our visits come from .edu addresses I hope you can understand why we wouldn't want to end up on one of these netnanny-esque type blacklists.

I hope this is all cleared up, I deleted my comments about deleting your comments in the other thread to make sure they weren't misunderstood.

Now, if we could just move on and keep the comments section focused on useful discussion and not need to moderate them.. ;)

My post was not meant to be

My post was not meant to be sarcastic at all. My Dad is a Mason, and the statements I made about my family are all true! I too am "anti-Freemasonry" and I consider myself to be anything but a "prude". What I did find surprising was Jame's description of his sexual prowess in response. I was going to ask him if he was "hot", but I decided to let it drop.