This is off topic but I've been watching the sensure hearings on C-SPAN and I want to say that Senator Warren Hatch is whiney little piece of well manicured shit. There its out.

Thanks!

"Scientists and scholars"

Giggle. who said comedy was dead?

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=13250

PENTBOMB?

WTF?

thank wingtv, that's where I got it :)

The war on Afghanistan in which Al Queda (which translates loosely to "our guys") was allowed to escape had nothing to do with the Gullible War on Terror.

There are Islamists that use terrorism. There are western country's that use terroism. There cannot be war on a tactic.

Al Queda really translates to "the base" which was the CIA's dataBASE of members of the Mujahadin who fought the russians.

Yesterday in Iraq, the TV was blaring with the message for people not to travel anywhere with the Iraqi police or army unless their were American forces along side of them.

The army is finding dumber and dumber spokes people who keep telling us, "Things are better in Iraq".

By the way, its a friggin disaster that's going to haunt our children and their children.

I think we should load up the neo cons and drop them in the middle of Bagdhad on our way out to give the enraged population something to focus on. Good military tactic . . diversion.

It sure would be nice if Harry Belafonte came out with some 9/11 truth. It would be very hard to attack him the way Charlie Sheen was attacked. Belafonte is squeeky clean and loved world wide. The mainstream media would have to report it. Even Fox News would have no choice. What would Scam Hannity or Bill (the spin master ) O'Lieley say then? I love it!!!! Also, thanks for the PENTBOMB thing sitting-bull. Another fraudian slip by the masters of deception.

I hate to say it, but that newspaper published dude's letter on April 1st. Call me cynical, but I think they were taking a jab at him by doing so.

Wish it were an April 2 paper. :

Jon Gold wrote,

"I confronted Rep. Weldon today."

You 'confronted' him? For what purpose - to discredit yourself?

Because the rate of new articles posted is hard to keep up with, and the relevant thread has already been pushed 15(!) spots down, and because I have a feeling this 'anonymous' guy would sooner read this thread than the other, AND because I don't feel like waiting for an open thread, I took the liberty of posting this here as well. I hope nobody minds, as it still somehow relates to the topic, and replies by anonymous trolls.

anonymous,

> zuco said,
>
> "What makes you think you need to include police, firemen,
> government officials and media people in planning 911?"
>
> What makes you think you can claim a conspiracy without
> providing physical evidence?

What makes you think I'm doing so?

I don't know why you quoted what you quoted and addressed me on a topic I haven't commented on, but you will never hear me talking about 'upward rushing winds' as an argument, let alone as factual evidence, for a coverup of the events of september 11th.

I am aware, and agree with you and NL, that there are a lot of people in the '911 truth movement' that are way too eager to grasp just about anything that they stumble upon, no matter what the source or its credentials. That's why I myself am always open to criticism and skepticism, and I hope 911blogger is too.

However.

In one of your posts in this particular thread, regarding controlled demolition, you say "Yet there is no evidence of explosives." Reading through other comment threads, the alleged lack of evidence seems to be one of you're biggest arguments, if not the only one. Well, let me tell you a couple of things.

There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden and said 19 hijackers pulled this whole thing off, whether they pulled it off unaided, or pulled it off altogether. You may think there is, because of the official report, but when you look at the facts (passengers lists, hijackers' identities, Osama's repeated denial) AND the circumstancial evidence (a list of the alleged perpetraters after only two days, Osama's alleged confession tape that holds no credibility (not because the guy merely just doesn't look like him, and the quality of the tape is so poor you cannot even see his lips saying what he allegedly says, but the fact that the arab-english translation is faulty, and the complete lack of logic for it - were it indeed Osama he would've surely been proud of his acts and taken complete responsability directly after 911)), you might conclude the whole thing is an unsubstantiated claim from the Pentagon.

There is no evidence that building 7 came down from damage caused by tower 1's collapse and the fires on several floors. You might think there is, because of official reports, but the way it collapsed (symetrically, totally, leaving only a footprint of crumbles dust) and the lack of support for that claim (no mention in the offical 911 report, not a word from NIST) along with yet again circumstancial evidence (a building with such powerful, and in terms of national security crucial tenants, collapsing on the day of the attacks would surely deserve more attention from any research commision) makes it yet another unsupported one.

There is no evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. You might think there is, you know, the official story and all that, but when you look at all the -contradictory- facts (the plane allegedly vaporized yet 98% of passengers DNA has been recovered, the contradicting eye witness reports) along with the circumstancial evidence (the flight path being completely illogical and physically improbable, resulting in a minimal amount of casualties and structural damage), and take into account that possible evidence (security camera footage from different angles) is being withheld to this very day, there is simple no strong case for it.

If you, anonymous, think that my assumptions are incorrect, or think that you have strong, convincing evidence that counters my above claims, please enlighten me. I think you will a have a hard time at it though, as several governmental institutes with multi-million and even multi-billion budgets have yet failed to do so. And don't worry, I checked with 911myths.com, which -surprisingly- is just as sloppy, suggestive, incomplete and inadequate on these points as some advocates of the more outlandish 911 theories out there are on their subjects.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no solid evidence to support the official explanation of what exactly happened on september 11th. Yet I don't ever hear you complain about that. A lot of people do, but all you can say is "there is no evidence". You seem to portray the entire discussion as irrelevant, for its lack of hard, cold facts. And while I disagree, let me present you some facts you might want to respond to.

It is a fact attacks took place on september 11th. We've all seen it on TV, and a lot of people have witnessed it in person.
It is a fact these events have brought forth a cultural, political and social change throughout the entire world, but most notably in the US.
It is a fact these events happened to fit several political agendas, most notably those of the PNAC.
It is a fact these events is what allowed the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is a fact these events allowed the Patriot Act to pass.
It is a fact the physics of the collapses of the three WTC towers and the impact of flight 77 have never before been seen, and cannot be recreated in scientific computer simulations.
It is a fact NORAD ran several exercises that day, leaving the US exceptionally vulnerable, in spite of several high level security warnings weeks and months before september 11th.
It is a fact Condolleezza Rice and others lied about knowledge of the possibility of such an event taking place (i.e. crashing passenger aircraft into buildings).
It is a fact George W Bush was not immediately rushed into security when one of the hijacked planes was still in the air.
It is a fact George W Bush opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the attacks.
It is a fact George W Bush refused to publicly testify to that commission, and refused to take an oath.
It is a fact Cheney's Halliburton has been awarded roughly 50% (about 13 billion dollars) of all Iraqi contractor deals.
It is a fact both investigations on the insider trading on put options as well as the anthrax attacks have never been completed.

I could go on quite some time, because there is so much more, but I'll leave it here. I just wrote down some points that came to mind, but if you're interested, there are litteraly hundreds of people who have published more thorough and extensive reports on this, supported with facts, theories and/or media references. Besides, I'm not even American, which makes it quite a task for me to elaborate like this in a language that is not my native tongue. Also, I have other things to do than to discuss the fairly obvious with narrowminded people like yourself, who fail to respond to more or less valid points made on this board with something other than stating it is not factual, or ignoring it altogether.

Still, there's one last this I'd like you to ask. Say all of this arab boxcutter wielding flight simulator enthousiasts bypassing the worlds biggest military authority in spite of several high level advance warnings is true. Say, the official story is, however improbable, true. Osama and his trigger happy boyscout cubs attacked the US and managed to hit three out of four targets. Three steel skyscrapers collapsed to nothing but rubble and dust, with one of the buildings not even being hit by aircraft. Why on earth would you not investigate the possibility of explosives? Surely arab terrorist have much more experience in that field, compared to operating passenger aircraft, so why not investigate? It would be something you would like to know, wouldn't it?
I guess for some it would not.

anonymous & glenn,

I've been lurking for quite awhile but, observing your inane remarks repeated over and over ad nauseam has made me a skeptic of the "official" 9/11 events.

Thank you for helping me see the light.

Respect,

A Lurker.

"Because the rate of new articles posted is hard to keep up with, and the relevant thread has already been pushed 15(!) spots down,..."

Maybe an index of all recent articles at the top of the page would make it easier for readers to keep up, if it's feasible and not too much trouble. (I don't have any problems with keeping up, though)

Me neither fhb, but I dislike the way some comment threads 'die' when a bunch of new articles are posted. Maybe a forum addition to 911blogger would be an idea.

Representative Curt Weldon Takes Part In A Town Hall Meeting - Audio Inside

Enabling acts prepared?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/01/gwot_cha/

The anonymous posters who lie and flanstein are likely disinformation agents engaged in the DoD's domestic information war.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/02/con06077.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/20060302_4370.html

I just don't know where they find people with such a lack of conscience to do that job.

"You 'confronted' him? For what purpose - to discredit yourself?"

To fight for my country. What are you doing other than helping fascists, and murderers?

Next on rbnlive.com

Webster Tarpley with Andreas von Bülow.

He was member of german parlament from 1969 to 1994, served in the parlamentary control committee, he was deputy of state in the department if defense, and for 2 years even minister for R&D and techniques.

His book: The CIA and Sep. the 11.th

http://www.rbnlive.com

amazing jon! i was never sure which way Weldon went on the greater subject of 9/11, but now I think you've found the answer. good luck with your meeting with him. this is good news.

Here's the dailykos entry...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/1/163451/5317

Here's the democraticunderground.com entry...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...

"amazing jon! i was never sure which way Weldon went on the greater subject of 9/11, but now I think you've found the answer. good luck with your meeting with him. this is good news."

Thanks Ian...

"anonymous & glenn,

I've been lurking for quite awhile but, observing your inane remarks repeated over and over ad nauseam has made me a skeptic of the "official" 9/11 events.

Thank you for helping me see the light.

Respect,

A Lurker."

Best post ever.

Zuco--fantastic posting!!! Thank you.

"Me neither fhb, but I dislike the way some comment threads 'die' when a bunch of new articles are posted. Maybe a forum addition to 911blogger would be an idea."

Hey... over here...

http://www.yourbbsucks.com

As reported by Green Party Guy, does anyone have further info re: Seth Green, Erica Jong, & Rep. Dana Rohrbacher on the Bill Maher show last night??? GPG says Green, Jong, & Rohrbacher told a doubtful Maher that Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11. This is big!

You are a very dilligent truther, Mr. Gold!

Jon, big kudos for participating in democracy with your representative! I reckon it was a hard call between doing that or composing that expansive essay for the trolls.

[music]
http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/areyouacitizen.mp3

"Flanstein & anonymous: why do you spend so much time on this board? Do you have a purpose here, other than to bust balls?"

I actually only spend a few minutes a day here, but I do find it fascinating.

Folks who all believe in the same conspiracy - online together slapping each other on their virtual backs - believing with a smug certainty that only they know the truth about 9/11.

re: wind up the stairs

Fireman: "A most huge incredible force of wind and debris came up the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground"
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.debris.up.the.stairs.wmv

"I was standing next to WTC1, when all of a sudden we all heard rumbling-- the glass like, blew out and threw me onto the sidewalk..."
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.glass.blew.out.wmv

"...the bottom of our building was blown out."
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.msnbc.1.wmv

more individual clips at
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/

Or check the various "bomb montage" videos at
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/special-feature-911-related-videos_04....

RE: holocaust denial [RP]

The response of the Ukrainian US embassy to a local newspaper which featured an article about The 911 Scholars for Truth, stated "questioning 911 is equivelent to Holocaust denial".

Well I disagree with that analogy wholeheartedly. st911 is more like a Conspiracy Theory suggesting that the killing of millions of Jews was perpetrated by their own government while they denied it happened, rather than by some Arab Muslims. Oh gee, what do you know? It was. There goes that analogy.

anonymous,

You have failed to grasp the intention of my post. Maybe it's my english -like I said, it's not my native tongue- or maybe you indeed are a troll, not here for a real debate, just want to waste people's time. Maybe so. Still, I won't leave it at this.

The intention of my post was that it doesn't make your point any clearer when you merely cough up hollow phrases like "no evidence" or "it's debunked already". It also doesn't help that you systematically do this with selective issues, and leave others completely untouched.

You assume I claim to know flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, that WTC7 collapsed and crumbled of controlled demolition, and that Osama and 19 arab hijackers weren't behind 911. Well, I don't.

I don't know whether flight 77 or some other plane, maybe even a missile hit the Pentagon. I assume it could well be flight 77, but I just don't know. Because I haven't seen enough facts supporting it. Sure, I have seen the 5 frames of impact footage, but that didn't help me much. And yes, I have seen pictures of a handful of scrap, including what seems to be the combustion casing of one of the engines. There has been a lot of discussion on whether the parts fitted the engine of the plane (like the one here) but you know what? It shouldn't matter, not to you at least. Because it's not rock-solid proof that those parts belonged to flight 77. There's just a few facts about the Pentagon hit. Number one would ofcourse be flight 77 and its crew and passengers have disappeared on september 11th, whether they crashed into the Pentagon, were part of some ingenious bumble-plane swap, have been flown into the Pacific, or have been confiscated by an alien fleet. I'm not suggesting any of the latter possibilities, I'm just saying all we know for sure is that flight 77 disappeared. Another fact is that something hit the west wing of the Pentagon. The extensive footage after the crash clearly shows us. Another fact is that a small amount of wreckage has been found, parts of which are identifiable. You may identify them as engine parts from an American Airlines 757-223, but to conclude they were from flight 77 or even a 757-223 is simply assuming, not a proven fact. Call me an antfucker, but it just isn't. Now, other facts of the Pentagon crash include a lot of made statements of officials and eyewitnesses. Not what they conclude, just that they are made. Note however that there are several eyewitness accounts that point in different directions. Nothing funny, just another fact. Some witnesses even recall smelling carbite, which isn't your average airplane fuel, but hey, we're at the Pentagon here, who knows what these guys kept in stock there. So to sum it up, yes, it seems that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. But to me, and apparently to a lot of others, it has not without a doubt been proven that it in fact was flight 77. Proof (or supporting evidence, to remain in antfucker-mode) for that could very well lie within the security cameras' footage of surrounding buildings, or a valid and scientific explanation of how that cute piece of diffuser case seems to be the only remaining part of two six-ton Rolls Royce engines. But as of today, that video footage is still in some government bunker (if it still exists ofcourse), and despite thousands of conspiracy websites and millions of suspicious individuals the world over, we haven't seen more wreckage than the tiny amounts on the handful of pictures that were in the public domain shortly after september 11th, or heard any feasible explanation for the lack of larger amounts of wreckage. My vote on this is I simply don't know. If I had to make a choice where my life depended on it, I would probably say it in fact was AA77. This is one of the reasons I tend not to focus on the Pentagon crash altogether; there are other, more damning issues. I do find it confusing though that that video material hasn't been released yet. I'm also still struggling to find any logic in the hijackers' choice for the supposed flight path, and the supernatural manoevres (according to 757-223 pilots) it needed.

As for building 7, I haven't seen any evidence for it to come down like it did. Ofcourse I've seen the infamous video footage of the almost elegant collapse, and I think I have seen all of the pictures that are available of WTC 7 burning, including the ones that are less popular with die-hard conspiracy theorists, as shown on 911myths among others. You are stating there is plenty of evidence, so I'm begging you to share that evidence with me. Because up until now, the only 'explanation' I've heard of, is the one NIST has come up with, albeit a temporary one. They suggest the damage from the south side, the fires on several floor, as well as the possibly poor construction of the building made all supporting structures collapse simultaniously. They are still working on the final report though. Maybe you could give them a call, as they are still puzzled on how the collapse actually took place, and you seem to know quite a lot about it. The only facts about WTC 7 are it was damaged by debris of WTC 1, fires raged on several floors, and it collapsed into its own footprint. My bet is fires and structural damage (if it was structural) could not have brought WTC 7 down in such a neat fashion, even if it was poorly built. But again, to be perfectly honest, I do not know.

As for the hijackers and Osama, there is simply no evidence for all of those 19 men to have been on board of those four planes. As far as I know no DNA of them has been retrieved, and official reports state they weren't even on the passenger list. Some of the alleged evidence, like the visual recording of Atta earlier that day rises serious questions about immigration and airport security procedures, and another piece of evidence, the retrieval of one of the hijackers unscathed passports points to the exact opposite direction; it is more probable the document was planted than that it survived the crash when the flight recorders allegedly didn't. But even if it did survive the crash, as 911myths suggest, is it proof those men were on board, or better yet, hijacked the plane and slammed it into the towers? Again it is merely a suggestion, not a fact. And as for Osama's involvement? How come, in every single statement he made, even the disputed ones, he talks about 'them' and not 'us'? Why would he not take claim for the world's most impressive terrorist attacks ever? For a radical jihadist with his ambition, the suggestion that he feared retalliation is just preposterous. And I'm even not getting into that amateuristic 'confession tape' that was 'found' in a house in Jalalabad. Or on second thought, I guess I will. See, I work as a visual effects specialist, and have an arabist scholar among my friends. I can see the tape has been tampered with, the arabist judged the arab talking is not properly translated, slanted to fit the US government's case even. So don't 'nonsense' me here: we are the experts on this one. And don't worry, she is not an arab, not even islamic, not even sympathetic. Even if the two of us are wrong, it contradicts Osama's other statements (in which he is properly visible and in sync with the audio) more than you or your beloved leader like to admit.

So, to sum it all up, not factual, not factual and hey, guess what - not factual. Merely suggestions, even though some of those may seem very probable. Again, I don't know all of it, because I can well imagine (and on some accounts am sure) I have not seen all the evidence. My point was: you seem to be such a frantic fact-lover, how is it that you keep repeating mere assumptions, most of which are solely uttered by government officials and/or their lap dogs? If you want to stick to the facts, why not comment on my loosely compiled and far from complete list of facts? Because that list, and the facts therein, are the exact reason why so many people have started asking questions - not just how to cope with islamic fundamentalism or how to improve national security, but what happened on the day of september 11th, what is the explanation for the US government's behaviour on and after the attacks, why are we in Iraq, how come I can't take a bloody nailclipper aboard a plane anymore.

The fact I do not know the facts is the reason I'm here. I want to know what's going on. I do not know what exactly happened on that faithful day, and chances are I never will, like the rest of us, like you. But it's not in my nature to just swallow whatever's been fed to me by the authorities, not with something so huge and so critical, not with so much at stake. That's why I'm here, to discuss the possibilities with people equally concerned, because your and my government obviously aren't. I would love you to come foreward with solid, factual evidence on what happened with WTC7, what slammed into the pentagon, who managed to pull this whole thing off and how, because it would clear some huge doubts in my mind. And I don't think I speak only for myself here. If you don't, and continue to blatantly act like a troll, not only will you be treated as such (i.e. ignored), but chances are you actually are strengthening our side of the story - simply by weakening yours. Apparently you already pushed one over to 'our side'.

You told me "You can't fool anyone that knows far more than you ever will". I don't know what you know, but apart from the fact that I seem to know more about how to have a proper debate than you, I know something you don't know. I know why you won't give a reaction to the list of facts I presented you. It's because you don't know how to react to it.

> Harry Belafonte is a commie.

They've said that about Chavez as well. I like them both. Maybe I just like commies. More flamebait for the trolls I guess..

Flanstein,

> Do you goose step around in your nazi uniform in public, or just in the privacy of your home?

Judging on the shameless anti-arab character of your site, I guess we all know who's wearing the brown shirt.

Given the topic, "911 Questions Remain," it might be useful at this point to revisit Griffin's 115 Questions to see if any of them have been answered and if there are any more. Here they are:

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the

More:

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the

The rest:

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)

Concise, smoking-gun critique of 9-11 Commission Report Omissions: http://911blimp.net/prf_911commRpt.shtml
________________________________________

Doug Thompson is in denial..

'Charlie Sheen? That's the best the conspiracy buffs can do?'

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/04/charlie_sheen_thats_the_b...

uh.. double post

Hey everyone, www.yourbbsucks.com is the "official" forum of 911blogger.

There is tons of info there, but watch out, there is also a weirdo that hangs out trying to get everyone to watch old horror movies. Weird guy, I think he's Canadian...

al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. Period.

Patches OÂ’Houlihan (Dodgeball Jedi) explains 9/11

Jimmy: Gosh, Patches; IÂ’m having a hard time sleeping at night because I keep thinking about those giant buildings falling down!

Patches: Not to worry, Jimmy! In the official report of 9/11, experts from our own government have explained to us that it all makes perfect sense!

Jimmy: Really!?

Patches: Yes, really! You see, Jimmy: all of the exploding jet fuel from those planes blew the fireproofing off of the steel inside the buildings, and then set allllllll that *paper* inside them on fire! You know how dangerous fire is, right Jimmy?

Jimmy: Oh, yea Patches!

Patches: Well, when allllllll of that paper caught on fire, it got *so hot* that it made the steel weak. These buildings were built unlike any other buildings, you see. So when the steel got *just* weak enough, it made the *connecting clips* holding up the floors of the building pop right off, just like a zipper!

Jimmy: Wow!

Patches: ThatÂ’s right, Jimmy. So once that zipper started unzipping, there was no stopping it. The best engineers that money can buy have all agreed . . .

Jimmy: But Patches, wait a second! The fires were way up high in the buildings! Sure, the fire weakened *that* steel, but what about the bottom part of the buildings!

Patches: Not to worry, Jimmy! You see, giant buildings are full of tension, right?

Jimmy: OK . . .

Patches: And once that tension was released, even a little bit, the rest of the building popped apart! Think of it like your Jack in the Box!

Jimmy: Ohhh, ok!

Patches: So if you ever start worrying about how those giant buildings fell down, I want you to remember:
Lots of burning paper softened the steel!
And Jack in the Box!

Jimmy: Wow, thanks Patches! YouÂ’re the greatest!

Patches: No problem Jimmy! Now, if any of your friends is worried about how those buildings fell down, you know just what to tell them!

Jimmy: I sure do!

Patches: This is Patches OÂ’Houlihan, signing off; and remember kids: lots of burning paper, and Jack in the Box! So long, and sleep tight!

The republicans are responsible for creating the ugliness of Cindy Sheehan's face. They combined the genes of Ellen Degeneres and an Ardvark in a secret neocon lab, and created this monster to turn people off the anti-war argument. Demand the truth.

hey ds, you spelled it wrong -- it's al CIAda

ds=dumb shit.

"The captain of emergency medical services said "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (page 15 -- pdf file; Google's web version is here)"

"Similiarly, the Assistant Fire Commissioner stated "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” . In the same statement, the Assistant Commissioner recounts how a lieutenant firefighter he spoke with independently verified the flashes."

Find it all here:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Grego...

doug thompson is on the no fly list, and was probably threatened, if you read him you would know this

we need pat buchanan on our side

sbguy, the WTC EMS & Firefighter are clearly stating they witnessed sequential explosions of controlled demolition!

Anonymous wrote,

"sbguy, the WTC EMS & Firefighter are clearly stating they witnessed sequential explosions of controlled demolition."

No, they didn't.

"sbguy, the WTC EMS & Firefighter are clearly stating they witnessed sequential explosions of controlled demolition!"

What nonsense - they did no such thing.

"No, they didn't.
anonymous | 04.02.06 - 11:35 am |"
YOU ARE A TALKING BOWEL MOVEMENT. GET LOST!

Flanshit, we can certainly infer from what was said that the EMS & Firefighter clearly implied that they witnessed the sequential explosions of a controlled demolition.

Commissioner Stephen Gregory, NYPD – October 3, 2001: “You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.”

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Grego...

'doug thompson is on the no fly list, and was probably threatened, if you read him you would know this'

Doug doesn't seem to be the kind of guy that would back away.. if, as you suggest, he's been threatened, it must have been serious.

Maybe he simply doesn't believe there is a conspiracy..

His reasoning was just laughable. He asks his fellow washington friends.

Muahaha.