Just wanted to say that it feels incredibly satisfying to see so many people around the country currently discussing what I have believed since that fateful day in 2001. It feels like the dike is about to burst, as the mainstream media starts to perk up its ears to the growing tsunami out there in 9/11 cyberland.
Keep up the great work everyone. I'm beginning to believe that there may actually be tens of thousands of people at Ground Zero this year on 9/11... all uniting to shine the light on the cover-up which is the 9/11 Commission, and the criminals currently running our country.
Again, great work to all those dedicating so many hours to the cause! Awesome Job!
Dennis Lapchis (not verified) on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 2:11pm.
wow....i cant keep finding out people who are idiots and dont even look at the facts. i already dont watch arnold movies anymore, and now i cant watch any more david spade stuff...but then again...who is david spade..
okay...is there anyone else here that watches "24"? The writters of this show KNOW about 911. They've been hinting at government involvment in a terrorist plot for many episodes...and finally we learn that the President (of the U.S.A.) is helping some kind of plot take place(we don't know what it is yet, but I'm guessing it's nuclear). It's king of blowing me away right now.
I think by the end of this show, it will help cement the idea that the government is willing to participate in self-inflicted terrorism for the sake of their own cause. this is definitely good for the truth movement.
ian c. (not verified) on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 2:17pm.
saw a tv commercial for LEGOLAND amusement park - shot of big lego firetrucks with waterhoses; narrative: "heroes needed"
admission: (and I quote) 9 and 11 dollars -
then a shot of a sign:
children 9 adults 11
___________
a good omen maybe?
James Ha (not verified) on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 3:29pm.
I would be extremely cautious in pushing, “Mark Bingham never existed” “He was not a real person”, etc. Those behind 9/11 invested an awful lot in Bingham, and for him to be a totally fictitious person would be a major blunder on their part. I doubt they would have risked this.
I would even be careful about his “Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham” line, and the suspicious 9/12/01 creation date of his memorial website without checking all possible “explanations” for these phenomena.
Still haven't had a reply to my last message to anonymous yet, so I'm bumping it. Hope this doesn't bother anybody.
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
What's suspicious of a Mark Bingham site registered on 9/12? Maybe if it had been registered on 9/10.
Am I the only one on here that finds the theories that the confession video is fake, that Flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon, and that the Flight 93 cell calls were faked pretty much bogus?
We really should be distancing from the assumed theories with only questionable suspicion, and focusing on the provable stuff.
also, it seems like their are two MIHOP camps: Those that think Osama and the 19 hijackers were agents of the CIA, and those that think they had nothing to do with it. Very odd.
My belief is that the CIA funded the little group they began calling "al Qaeda" way into the 90's: This effectively helped the Taliban when all over Afghanistan in the hopes theyd support the pipeline...and then
supporting al Qaeda in Bosnia and that area. I havent seen much proof that the CIA funded al Qaeda after 1998 however; and would like to see more links between the US and al Qaeda(specifically the claims Atta worked with CIA agents in Florida/Europe, and that some of the 19 hijackers were trained at US bases)
My thoery is that if MIHOP exists(Im already convinced on LIHOP), its possible inside help was done without the knowlege of al Qaeda.
pockybot (not verified) on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 8:13pm.
I remember when the scholars were on Coast2Coast, Jim Fetzer said National Geographic's 'Inside 9/11' had approx 20 frames of the Pentagon hit, as opposed to the usual 5 frames. Is this true, has anyone else here checked it out?
I heard that too and wondered why I hadn't seen them anywhere.
--
pockybot: "Am I the only one on here that finds the theories that the confession video is fake, that Flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon, and that the Flight 93 cell calls were faked pretty much bogus?"
I find the fact that you can't make cell phone calls from 30,000 feet interesting, and probably true. Doesn't mean some people didn't use the airphones, but it casts doubt on the calls that alledgedly came from cell phones.
pockybot: "We really should be distancing from the assumed theories with only questionable suspicion, and focusing on the provable stuff."
That I agree with. Controlled demolition is much easier to prove than anything to do with the flights, and most of the stuff related to the pentagon.
benthere (not verified) on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 8:53pm.
I agree with both of you guys. That is why i am reluctant to show to LooseChange to anybody because it has easily debunked points because they are circumstantial.
Also: we need a 911 debunking the debunkers book
and we a dvd of Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, David Griffith, and all the other credible researchers to do a debunking the debunker dvd and present the evidence in a way that shows how a straw man attack can not defeat laws of nature and common sense
I'm pretty sure the confession tape is fake, but hadn't it been for numerous believers, who slap it in my face whenever they're lost for other arguments (you know Bin Laden confessed he did it), I would not have touched it. The general thought about Bin Laden is that he confessed. I say that is not true, there are several clear and perfectly audible statements where he denied involvement (and even suggested who is or are responsible), only the very shabby, blurry, semi-inaudible one seems to contain a reference to a confession. I think the fact that to this very day the current government still holds Bin Laden responsible is a reason not to forget about it, although I agree it is not the most important issue right now.
dz heres an event: An evening of 9/11 truth- video screening and discussion. Wednesday 4/5 (tomorrow) at Unitarian Universalist Church 1025 N Smith St. Palatine,IL 60067. Admission free. Contact:midwestcitizen4truth@hotmail.com. Well be watching parts of "Painfull Deceptions" and "9/11 Revisited (Steven Jones)".
JAYBIRD (not verified) on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:31pm.
"What's suspicious of a Mark Bingham site registered on 9/12? Maybe if it had been registered on 9/10."
Like I said above, don't overdo the Bingham stuff, but don't underdo it either.
Which relative or friend of Bingham, amid the panic & chaos, said, "Gee, I'd better create a memorial website for Mark." And in less than 24 hours of the guy's bizarre, unresolved demise???
Also, while I don't think that we should focus on Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon & cell phone calls as our key points, I don't think these issues should be forgotten either.
You guys are hurting the 9/11 truth cause when you repeat that. Listen carefully to that tape. There is no confession. He didn't confess to anything. When its presented that way a false reality is imposed, so much so even that you believe it.
(and on top of that, the man in the video looks nothing like him!)
I believe the confession tape is measurable. The eye to nose and ear ratio is measurable and proveable that they are not the same men. What is more, there should be an attempt made to analyze the video. Who says what, when, and then determine when the so called "fake" bin laden appears. It would be easy to slip him into a tape wouldn't it? Not to mention the skin tones...etc.
I do agree however, that these are minor details and the big story remains the explosion of building WTC 1 and 2, and the implosion of WTC7.
I was also a little peeved that someone posted complaints about Hugo Chavez being recruited to help expose the official 9/11 story since he was a "socialist dictator". As opposed to what? George Bush, a fascist dictator who has clearly murdered 3000 people for political purposes? At least Chavez was democratically elected (and reinstated after a coup attempt - his people like him) and cares about the people of Venezuala. Can we really say that about Bush?
But with this in mind, it's clear that Chavez will not get the respect needed in certain political quarters to open this case up. It is my hope that he is at this moment talking to other leaders who might bolster his view for re-opening 9/11.
Off topic a bit - Why did Bill Maher try to recreate a mini "Showbiz Tonight" on his own show with none of the players? Charlie Sheen should challenge him (since as I have heard he called him a liar) to have him on his show and show the collapse of WTC 7. If Bill Maher believes the whole official story maybe he could step up to the plate and show what no other network has shown? Does he have the guts?
Yeah, whats going on? Nothing from Charlie for a couple of weeks, when is the next big statement?
I sent an email into Alex Jones suggesting they get Sheen on Oprah and let him blow the lid open on her show. Being a celebrity, Sheen should be able to get on pretty much any show he wants. Hopefully they are cooking up something good...
somebigguy (not verified) on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:32pm.
My belief is that the CIA funded the little group they began calling "al Qaeda" way into the 90's: This effectively helped the Taliban when all over Afghanistan in the hopes theyd support the pipeline...and then
supporting al Qaeda in Bosnia and that area. I havent seen much proof that the CIA funded al Qaeda after 1998 however; and would like to see more links between the US and al Qaeda(specifically the claims Atta worked with CIA agents in Florida/Europe, and that some of the 19 hijackers were trained at US bases)
__________---
Pockybot, there's evidence of funding of "Al Qaeda" through to the present. I'd recommend you look at Nafeez Ahmed's War on Truth. Ditto on US base training and the bios of the alleged hijackers.
Speaking of Atta in Florida, check out what Wayne Madsen is reporting this morning (April 4) re: Sun Cruz, at www.waynemadsenreport.com. Granted, perhaps not directly related, but if so ...
Still haven't had a reply to my last message to anonymous yet, so I'm bumping it. Hope this doesn't bother anybody.
Wow that was a real tome, and I would just like to note, devoting such time, bandwidth etc to a troll/shill is exactly the wrong response (aka your "taking the bait... that is, the response they seek-- to waste everyone's time and send folks down useless rabbit holes which lead nowhere productive. The steaming turds posted by 911Blimp, Amanda Reckonwith etc should be ignored entirely by folks interested in propagating 911-Truth rather than getting bogged down in quicksand.
Focus on WTC7, the multiple pentagon videos withheld, stock put options, PNAC docs.... matters of little/no dispute. Ignore flashes and blue screens and holograms etc.
Fredrique (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 12:13am.
You guys are hurting the 9/11 truth cause when you repeat that. Listen carefully to that tape. There is no confession. "
It is called a "confession tape" because the authorities have used it as a proof that bin Laden was behind the attacks. It is different from the earlier tapes, in which bin Laden clearly states that he had nothing to do with the attacks.
To me, it's almost certain that the person in the video is not bin Laden. As regards the media, I'm really astonished how "anything goes".
Vesa, if you're taking about the tape with the fat bin laden, there is still no confession on it, and has been no confession to date from bin Laden on ANY tape, let alone that one.
The wording on the fat bin laden tape has been spun into the context of a "bin laden confession" but if you listen carefully to what he says, he isnt actually confessing to anything.
Not arguing with your other points at all, just adding onto them.
In the CNN A.J. Hammer interview which includes Mark Bingham's mother (link above) Mark's mother sounds rehearsed when she states that Mark called her & said, "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham..." She seems to make certain to get in that he introduced himself as "Mark Bingham."
I guess she doesn't know what her own son sounds like on the phone and he didn't want her to think he was Mark Twain or Mark Wahlberg or something.
I found that clip on CNN unusual. AJ Hammer seemed to suggest as even the Mother did, that it was going to be a tough sell, 'considering all that was going on'. I think that's what Hammer said. And he stated that the overall review on the streets was negative.
And was flight 93 the one where the three last minutes of the tape was withheld from the families? I thought I had heard that once?
I disagree with you for a number of reasons. First, I think there are more people who happen to pick up on my discussion with anonymous than just the two of us. Not responding to his answer to my initial post would not make my case any stronger. Lurkers with a preference to anonymous' point of view would surely think I was overruled by his arguments. Second, anonymous did come up with some points, however thin and undocumented they might have been, and I don't intend to walk away from a discussion simply because somebody disagrees and does so quite unargumented. Of course there are certain limits, but it's not like I'm going into lengthy discussions with 100% trolls like ds. Third, it has been an interesting 'test case' for real life situations. It allowed me to rehearse a reply to any stubborn "no evidence" kind of response if I were to be discussing this with a coworker or a friend. Putting all those thoughts on paper certainly clears and sharpens my mind on the subjects. Fourth, it is a good exercise for me in the English language. I can never be too skillful in the language that dominates this entire debate. Fifth and last, it really didn't take all that much time or energy.
I realize my attempt are bound to be in vain, but i do want to have that discussion with him. Not just to convince him, but I might be wrong on some points too. I don't like the idea of having myself armed with arguments that have been debunked or disproven. And I certainly don't like the way certain people here have directly or indirectly called for a global ban on all who disagree. If you look at it objectively, it's just as stupid to follow the official story blindly than it is to take anything on the 'truth' side for granted. And I feel a lot of people are doing exactly that, on both sides.
zuco, thx for the reply, keep on keeping on, for myself I'm going to follow my own advice re not getting bogged down.
I got emailed a brief synopsis of D. R. Griffin's SF Commonwealth Club speech yesterday...
GriffinÂ’s speech essentially was a debunking of 10 myths that the 9/11 Commission reported. As you said it was very structured. The audience was quite receptive based on the Q&A. Most of the questions related to evidential matter, or else how people of conscience should respond to the inconsistencies. I bought a DVD covering the material, since I didnÂ’t want to make time to read the book. YouÂ’re welcome to borrow the DVD sometime. IÂ’m already convinced of official complicity. So my response has been to tell my friends that I strongly believe that 9/11 was a fraud and offer his book and other relevant articles.
Fredrique (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:03am.
I can understand using Muslim radicals as patsies in 9/11, since it plays into the plans to occupy the Middle East and the Caspian Basin.
But why would a military-industrial establishment dominated by white "Christian" right-wing militarists use a white Christian right-wing war veteran like Timothy McVeigh as a patsy in Oklahoma City?
timbermonkey (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:16am.
If you want to complain about David Spade's assinine behavior on Comedy Central's site, here is a link. Choose other for the show, because it's not listed.
It's time for my Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now” rant.
I remember seeing Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed about a month ago on her show. She didn’t ask him about any of his 9/11 truth work, and he didn’t mention it either. I guess the topic of 9/11 is “verboten” on a show entitled, "Democracy Now"???
So I did a web search looking for more info on Nafeez, and I accidentally came across a Democracy Now show in which Goodman featured David Ray Griffin & his book, The New Pearl Harbor, on 5/26/04.
For some reason, Goodman also brought in a government shill, Chip Berlet, the “Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates in Summerville, MA.” All Berlet did was play devil’s advocate & spout specious, previously debunked arguments against Griffin! Why didn’t Goodman give Griffin his own interview??? Goodman has plenty of hardcore “lefties” alone on her show that she doesn’t allow hecklers to disrupt.
To top this off, I recently watched the DVD “In Memoriam: New York City, 9/11/01.” Looking closely, I spotted, of all people, Amy Goodman in the crowd a few blocks away from WTC-7. She was there, in person, watching as WTC-7 imploded! She even shrieked & scurried through the crowd as it fell. SO WHY ISN'T GOODMAN MAKING AN ISSUE THAT SHE SAW A KEY BUILDING DISINTEGRATE BEFORE HER EYES FOR NO GOOD REASON ON 9/11??? DOES THIS "LEARNED LIBERAL" THINK F*CKING WTC SKYSCRAPERS SHOULD TURN INTO RUBBLE JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT, NO EXPLANATION REQUIRED??? DOESN’T SHE THINK IT ODD THAT THE 9/11 COMMISSION WOULDN'T EVEN TOUCH WTC-7???
SHE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THIS OBVIOUS BULLSHIT???
Something very odd about Mark Bingham's mother. Why would she make a point of repeating that silly line: "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham."? And she wouldn't shut up. She was very well rehearsed, if not mind-controlled. In one of the on-the-street interviews, a guy said we weren't ready for this movie because we still don't really know what happened. I quit watching Showbiz Tonight after they pulled Asner and Hicks, but maybe we should still keep an eye on the program. This is still note-worthy 9/11 related news.
"But why would a military-industrial establishment dominated by white "Christian" right-wing militarists use a white Christian right-wing war veteran like Timothy McVeigh as a patsy in Oklahoma City?"
A lot of people see the Oklahoma City Bombing as a "test" for 9/11... I don't know the answer to your question.
Jon Gold (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:40am.
"But why would a military-industrial establishment dominated by white "Christian" right-wing militarists use a white Christian right-wing war veteran like Timothy McVeigh as a patsy in Oklahoma City?"
Because they aren't "dominated by white Christian right wingers" they are dominated by blood-thirsty, saddistic, Molech-worshipping Satanists.
McVeigh may have been a white, right-wing Christian war veteran, but he was very upset with the government over the massacre at Waco. The perfect patsy for recruitment.
Timber, as far as McVeigh...I have read some interesting crossover ties b/t Ok City and Muslims. Some people think Oklahoma City was intended to be used as a pretext for action in the middle east (the PNAC type Pearl Harbor) and would be blamed on Muslims were it not for the Clinton admin. failing to follow the plan.
Al Czervik (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 4:12am.
"But why would a military-industrial establishment dominated by white "Christian" right-wing militarists use a white Christian right-wing war veteran like Timothy McVeigh as a patsy in Oklahoma City?"
Alex Jones has a video that talks about this and has a great deal of information about it.
He talks about a book being written about 2 years before the OK bombing and a person in the book whow blew up a building in OK was a character named Timmothy McVey.
A little odd that this same name was in a book with a similar event happening 2 years before the event.
Makes me wonder if that was the guys real name and if he is alive on some island somewhere???
RemoveBush (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 4:48am.
Already commented here on 911blogger:
"Ha, read further. Snow calls him out on this mistake:
Q Okay. A couple of things, I think a couple of minutes ago -- I want to make sure -- you said Osama bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 planning. You meant Saddam Hussein, correct? That Saddam Hussein was not involved in September 11th?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. Yes, sir.
Q Okay.
THE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thanks for straightening that out. I didn't realize I'd done that. (Laughter.)
Q Yes. Well, otherwise we'd have a whole lot more stories to deal with.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. All right. Well, I appreciate it."
STAY the hell AWAY from the Mark Bingham angle!! Even if it were true it would not, say again, NOT be worth pursuing: it's the perfect "wedge" between sympathy for 9-11 families and 9-11 Truth.
I was the one who dissed Chavez and
"it's clear that Chavez will not get the respect needed in certain political quarters to open this case up"
that's why I did it. (Besides, I don't like socialists thugs, even though they are preferable to Busheviks.)
I understand it would be hard to get a large number of Americans to embrace someone like Chavez, but I still don't understand why the man would be a thug. Is it because of his rather undiplomatic insults to Bush, or is there a political side to this.
To chime in on the McVeigh question, if it's not too late and everyone hasn't abandoned this thread: I will second the motion that these fascista are not Christians. Apparently Hitler hid under that rubric as well, but the plans were to kill the Christians after the Jews were finished off. If you will note, many of the most prominent names in the 911 movement are Christians. Many true Christians are anti-war (why not, Christ, after all, was a pacifist.) as well as pro-freedom - The Berrigan Bros. come to mind.
The right-wing Christians pose the greatest danger to the fascists, I have heard people say, and I sort of think that makes sense. I also think it's total Propaganda and bullshit that the "Christian Right" is the cornerstone of Bush support. Bush has no support. He's a dictator. The polls are gamed, imo, even when they show him at 30%. The last two elections (3 if you count the last Congressional election) were majorly gamed. The only people who support him are people who like to lick the ass of dictators. What's going on is obvious. Anyone who doesn't get it are just people who like to voluntarily submit to Law and Order, people who have been mind-f***ed since birth and are used to lies and accustomed to scoffing at anyone who is altruistic and sincere: that's why true Christains can see through it. A true Christian will respect every person and be able to listen long enough to comprehend what is going on. Those who support Bush and don't listen are ones who like government to be Big Daddy. (Or as it was in Russian , Big Mommy.)
As far as Amy Goodman: I think her level of intelligence is grossly overestimated. Though, I have seen her ask some damn good questions at times. But her bias' show so easily, especially if you watch her on TV. She can't control her emotions over the material and it comes right out on her face. She smirks almost as much as W.. And she is obviously biased against the 911 Truth movement. She not truly intelligent, or techinically minded, so I wouldn't blame her too much. She also comes across as a power nut, and I've heard stories to that effect. A power nut tends to be a control freak, and a control freak oftens lacks an imagination.
The right-wing Christian militia types are probably the only people who would potentially put up a fight, if it came to martial law and outright fascism. Those are people who are upset when their rights are infringed upon and will fight for them. Look at the pathetic Left. Some are concerned...but most are into denial, not only of 911 but of the true malevolence of W. Bush. I was the only leftist I knew of who was hip, at the time it happened, to Waco. Most couldn't care less. They went right along with the crowd which demonized Koresh.
I could rant on and on, but am going to Hick's fundraiser in Brooklyn.
Peggy Carter (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 7:31am.
As for Timothy McVeigh, it seems that he was probably a CIA MKULTRA/Project Monarch asset... Probably brought into it from a young age, developped dissociative identity disorder from trauma inflicted on him, and so on and so forth...
On a related topic, I highly recommend the book "Trance Formation of America", written by a former MKULTRA/Project Monarch mind-controlled asset and the guy who rescued her... It has some mindblowing parts involving Cheney, the Bush family, the New World Order, and much more... Here's a PDF copy of the book, and the site of their authors:
I don't know if this is a reliable source, but anyway, there you go, it's interesting nonetheless... From Tom Heneghan... cloakanddagger.de
"Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald continues to expand his investigation of the Valerie Plame leak case. Dots have now been connected between 9/11 and the Iraq War-Yellowcake-Bush-WD199Gate. Click for reference Cambone Notes/Udday Hussein letter to Putin.
Fitzgerald has now subpoenaed Saddam Hussein to answer questions on the noted Udday Hussein letter to Russian President Putin and communications that took place between Saddam, his late son Udday and the former NSA treason bitch now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. These conversations deal with pre-9/11, post 9/11 and pre-Iraq War.
Remember Rice traveled to Moscow to visit Putin the day after the Iraq War began. Note: Valerie Plame's CIA identity was leaked to the press the day Udday Hussein was assassinated in Iraq. Rice is now claiming executive privilege vis a vis Fitzgerald request for further testimony. Official subpoena coming forth soon.
Now one must note again that both Dunblaine pedophile Tony Blair aka British Prime Minister and Vladimir Putin have claimed diplomatic immunity vis a vis the Fitzgerald inquiry. It is then no accident that Condoleeza Rice and British Home Secretary Jack Straw flew to Iraq over the last weekend to arrange new BOX charges against Saddam Hussein. These charges are being scripted as to prevent the Fitzgerald's subpoena from having any force.
It is clear now that Saddam has been given diplomatic immunity by the U.S. State Dept. in order to avoid the Fitzgerald inquiry. Saddam now joins Blair and Putin in having immunity from prosecution.
P.S. Tom Delay's resignation from Congress and taking up Virginia residence confirms that Delay has flipped and is now cooperating with the Joint Dept. of Justice/Fitzgerald Inquiry relating to the Jack Abramoff affair. Delay has supplied evidence connecting the Sun Cruise Casino dots aka 9/11 and Florida-Gate 2000 coup d'etat. Note: Delay's evidence deals with Dallah Chairman Saleh Abdullah Kamel in the connections between the General Counsel of Islamic Banks and Greenberg Taurig. However a caution should be mentioned, Delay called extortion-friendly Mike Allen of the Washington Post to deliver his "I Quit" announcement. Question: Was Delay giving criminal Book and Snake Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward a heads up? Woodward is due back in front of the Fitzgerald Grand Jury soon in a desperate attempt to avoid indictment for perjury, obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy. Reference, Woodwards failure to use 9/11 Cambone notes in his Iraq War book Plan of Attack.
P.P.S. Sources close to the Fitzgerald inquiry report that new charges are soon to be aimed at Marc Rich attorney, Scooter Libby as well as the official announcement of the Indictments of Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley and Richard Armitage."
Peggy Carter"...Look at the pathetic Left. Some are concerned...but most are into denial, not only of 911 but of the true malevolence of W. Bush. I was the only leftist I knew of who was hip, at the time it happened, to Waco. Most couldn't care less. They went right along with the crowd which demonized Koresh."
Dynamite commentary re: Waco! The lefties (& everyone else too) NEVER, ever, should have let Clinton/Reno get away with the Waco murders!!! It set an exceedingly bad precedent, among other things, leading up towards our present-day dictatorship!
"I recently watched the DVD “In Memoriam: New York City, 9/11/01.” Looking closely, I spotted, of all people, Amy Goodman in the crowd a few blocks away from WTC-7. She was there, in person, watching as WTC-7 imploded! She even shrieked & scurried through the crowd as it fell. SO WHY ISN'T GOODMAN MAKING AN ISSUE THAT SHE SAW A KEY BUILDING DISINTEGRATE BEFORE HER EYES FOR NO GOOD REASON ON 9/11???"
I think Amy Goodman is dumb like a fox when it comes to 9/11 being an inside job! (Seeing WTC-7 implode in person is not something one can easily forget. However, I don't think Goodman has ever mentioned that she was right there.)
Here is a telling excerpt from an article that Al Czervik linked to above: http://www.oilempire.us/democracynow.html
During her [Goodman's] talk and the Indymedia video that preceded it, which exposed US involvement in atrocity after atrocity after atrocity throughout the world over the past 50 or more years, she [Goodman] nonetheless repeated the official story of 9/11 without introspection: "Muslim terrorists flew planes into buildings." What I heard from Amy [Goodman] was much like what I've heard from long-time activists that it was not surprising that terrorists would do this considering what the US has been doing all over the world for decades. Her [Goodman's] entire case last evening was that the US government perpetuates unthinkable deception and destruction to advance the corporate agenda throughout the world, yet not one hint in her [Goodman's] remarks that 9/11 was any other than the story from the self-same government and corporate media she so clearly understands.
Another very telling excerpt from the same link is:
"Ford Foundation funds Democracy Now and Chip Berlet....Why does the Ford Foundation - a pillar of the establishment invested in many of the corporations that Democracy Now claims to oppose - fund Democracy Now?"
(It appears that the Ford Foundation gave Democracy Now a quarter-million $$$ for the 2 years mentioned.)
Maybe this is why Goodman & other "journalists" pretend to know nothing excpet caveman Osama & his 19 lackies perpetrated 9/11???
(Please feel free to spread this info around--it makes a basic case-study about why the indy media won't go near 9/11 truth.)
david spade did a short bit
david spade did a short bit on charlie sheen tonight.. mentioned that sheen supported the idea of controlled demolition, etc. etc.
he ended by telling users to visit:
http://www.charliesheenmoron.com/
which routes to the official page of 'the showbiz show with david spade'..
you can find the video at 5 minutes in here:
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=609...
if it moves off the main page it is called 'News - Flava Flav'
Just wanted to say that it
Just wanted to say that it feels incredibly satisfying to see so many people around the country currently discussing what I have believed since that fateful day in 2001. It feels like the dike is about to burst, as the mainstream media starts to perk up its ears to the growing tsunami out there in 9/11 cyberland.
Keep up the great work everyone. I'm beginning to believe that there may actually be tens of thousands of people at Ground Zero this year on 9/11... all uniting to shine the light on the cover-up which is the 9/11 Commission, and the criminals currently running our country.
Again, great work to all those dedicating so many hours to the cause! Awesome Job!
wow....i cant keep finding
wow....i cant keep finding out people who are idiots and dont even look at the facts. i already dont watch arnold movies anymore, and now i cant watch any more david spade stuff...but then again...who is david spade..
okay...is there anyone else
okay...is there anyone else here that watches "24"? The writters of this show KNOW about 911. They've been hinting at government involvment in a terrorist plot for many episodes...and finally we learn that the President (of the U.S.A.) is helping some kind of plot take place(we don't know what it is yet, but I'm guessing it's nuclear). It's king of blowing me away right now.
I think by the end of this show, it will help cement the idea that the government is willing to participate in self-inflicted terrorism for the sake of their own cause. this is definitely good for the truth movement.
ian c., ya, i saw it
ian c.,
ya, i saw it tonight, good stuff.
http://video.google.com/video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8112825559202389150&q=election+h...
Election Fraud in 2004 testimony
David Spade needs a lesson
David Spade needs a lesson taught him
saw a tv commercial for
saw a tv commercial for LEGOLAND amusement park - shot of big lego firetrucks with waterhoses; narrative: "heroes needed"
admission: (and I quote) 9 and 11 dollars -
then a shot of a sign:
children 9 adults 11
___________
a good omen maybe?
dz, It was unfortunate to
dz, It was unfortunate to hear considerable applause when that weasel, David Spade, told his audience to visit charliesheenmoron.com
Spade & Bill Maher think they are witty “intelligentsia” of cable tv, but they did a great disservice to their viewers in mocking 9/11 truth.
I would be extremely
I would be extremely cautious in pushing, “Mark Bingham never existed” “He was not a real person”, etc. Those behind 9/11 invested an awful lot in Bingham, and for him to be a totally fictitious person would be a major blunder on their part. I doubt they would have risked this.
I would even be careful about his “Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham” line, and the suspicious 9/12/01 creation date of his memorial website without checking all possible “explanations” for these phenomena.
ooh boy that video is great.
ooh boy that video is great.
Still haven't had a reply to
Still haven't had a reply to my last message to anonymous yet, so I'm bumping it. Hope this doesn't bother anybody.
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
I just added a bunch of
I just added a bunch of videos:
http://911source.org/video
What's suspicious of a Mark
What's suspicious of a Mark Bingham site registered on 9/12? Maybe if it had been registered on 9/10.
Am I the only one on here that finds the theories that the confession video is fake, that Flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon, and that the Flight 93 cell calls were faked pretty much bogus?
We really should be distancing from the assumed theories with only questionable suspicion, and focusing on the provable stuff.
also, it seems like their are two MIHOP camps: Those that think Osama and the 19 hijackers were agents of the CIA, and those that think they had nothing to do with it. Very odd.
My belief is that the CIA funded the little group they began calling "al Qaeda" way into the 90's: This effectively helped the Taliban when all over Afghanistan in the hopes theyd support the pipeline...and then
supporting al Qaeda in Bosnia and that area. I havent seen much proof that the CIA funded al Qaeda after 1998 however; and would like to see more links between the US and al Qaeda(specifically the claims Atta worked with CIA agents in Florida/Europe, and that some of the 19 hijackers were trained at US bases)
My thoery is that if MIHOP exists(Im already convinced on LIHOP), its possible inside help was done without the knowlege of al Qaeda.
I remember when the scholars
I remember when the scholars were on Coast2Coast, Jim Fetzer said National Geographic's 'Inside 9/11' had approx 20 frames of the Pentagon hit, as opposed to the usual 5 frames. Is this true, has anyone else here checked it out?
I heard that too and
I heard that too and wondered why I hadn't seen them anywhere.
--
pockybot: "Am I the only one on here that finds the theories that the confession video is fake, that Flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon, and that the Flight 93 cell calls were faked pretty much bogus?"
I find the fact that you can't make cell phone calls from 30,000 feet interesting, and probably true. Doesn't mean some people didn't use the airphones, but it casts doubt on the calls that alledgedly came from cell phones.
pockybot: "We really should be distancing from the assumed theories with only questionable suspicion, and focusing on the provable stuff."
That I agree with. Controlled demolition is much easier to prove than anything to do with the flights, and most of the stuff related to the pentagon.
I agree with both of you
I agree with both of you guys. That is why i am reluctant to show to LooseChange to anybody because it has easily debunked points because they are circumstantial.
Also: we need a 911 debunking the debunkers book
and we a dvd of Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, David Griffith, and all the other credible researchers to do a debunking the debunker dvd and present the evidence in a way that shows how a straw man attack can not defeat laws of nature and common sense
I'm pretty sure the
I'm pretty sure the confession tape is fake, but hadn't it been for numerous believers, who slap it in my face whenever they're lost for other arguments (you know Bin Laden confessed he did it), I would not have touched it. The general thought about Bin Laden is that he confessed. I say that is not true, there are several clear and perfectly audible statements where he denied involvement (and even suggested who is or are responsible), only the very shabby, blurry, semi-inaudible one seems to contain a reference to a confession. I think the fact that to this very day the current government still holds Bin Laden responsible is a reason not to forget about it, although I agree it is not the most important issue right now.
Also, I think in the end it
Also, I think in the end it would be easier to disprove NIST's report, than to prove controlled demolition. Any thoughts on that?
dz heres an event: An
dz heres an event: An evening of 9/11 truth- video screening and discussion. Wednesday 4/5 (tomorrow) at Unitarian Universalist Church 1025 N Smith St. Palatine,IL 60067. Admission free. Contact:midwestcitizen4truth@hotmail.com. Well be watching parts of "Painfull Deceptions" and "9/11 Revisited (Steven Jones)".
"What's suspicious of a Mark
"What's suspicious of a Mark Bingham site registered on 9/12? Maybe if it had been registered on 9/10."
Like I said above, don't overdo the Bingham stuff, but don't underdo it either.
Which relative or friend of Bingham, amid the panic & chaos, said, "Gee, I'd better create a memorial website for Mark." And in less than 24 hours of the guy's bizarre, unresolved demise???
Also, while I don't think
Also, while I don't think that we should focus on Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon & cell phone calls as our key points, I don't think these issues should be forgotten either.
"the confession video is
"the confession video is fake"
You guys are hurting the 9/11 truth cause when you repeat that. Listen carefully to that tape. There is no confession. He didn't confess to anything. When its presented that way a false reality is imposed, so much so even that you believe it.
(and on top of that, the man in the video looks nothing like him!)
Ruppert warns of evidence
Ruppert warns of evidence planted that he calls "honey pots". The honey draws in people and then the story is discredited.
Rove is the master of this.
He plants real info with less than credible people. When they reveal the information, its is discredited along with the person.
I believe the confession
I believe the confession tape is measurable. The eye to nose and ear ratio is measurable and proveable that they are not the same men. What is more, there should be an attempt made to analyze the video. Who says what, when, and then determine when the so called "fake" bin laden appears. It would be easy to slip him into a tape wouldn't it? Not to mention the skin tones...etc.
I do agree however, that these are minor details and the big story remains the explosion of building WTC 1 and 2, and the implosion of WTC7.
WTC7 is Mecca
WTC7 is Mecca
I was also a little peeved
I was also a little peeved that someone posted complaints about Hugo Chavez being recruited to help expose the official 9/11 story since he was a "socialist dictator". As opposed to what? George Bush, a fascist dictator who has clearly murdered 3000 people for political purposes? At least Chavez was democratically elected (and reinstated after a coup attempt - his people like him) and cares about the people of Venezuala. Can we really say that about Bush?
But with this in mind, it's clear that Chavez will not get the respect needed in certain political quarters to open this case up. It is my hope that he is at this moment talking to other leaders who might bolster his view for re-opening 9/11.
Off topic a bit - Why did
Off topic a bit - Why did Bill Maher try to recreate a mini "Showbiz Tonight" on his own show with none of the players? Charlie Sheen should challenge him (since as I have heard he called him a liar) to have him on his show and show the collapse of WTC 7. If Bill Maher believes the whole official story maybe he could step up to the plate and show what no other network has shown? Does he have the guts?
Yeah, whats going on?
Yeah, whats going on? Nothing from Charlie for a couple of weeks, when is the next big statement?
I sent an email into Alex Jones suggesting they get Sheen on Oprah and let him blow the lid open on her show. Being a celebrity, Sheen should be able to get on pretty much any show he wants. Hopefully they are cooking up something good...
Pockybot said_____-- My
Pockybot said_____--
My belief is that the CIA funded the little group they began calling "al Qaeda" way into the 90's: This effectively helped the Taliban when all over Afghanistan in the hopes theyd support the pipeline...and then
supporting al Qaeda in Bosnia and that area. I havent seen much proof that the CIA funded al Qaeda after 1998 however; and would like to see more links between the US and al Qaeda(specifically the claims Atta worked with CIA agents in Florida/Europe, and that some of the 19 hijackers were trained at US bases)
__________---
Pockybot, there's evidence of funding of "Al Qaeda" through to the present. I'd recommend you look at Nafeez Ahmed's War on Truth. Ditto on US base training and the bios of the alleged hijackers.
Speaking of Atta in Florida,
Speaking of Atta in Florida, check out what Wayne Madsen is reporting this morning (April 4) re: Sun Cruz, at www.waynemadsenreport.com. Granted, perhaps not directly related, but if so ...
Still haven't had a reply to
Still haven't had a reply to my last message to anonymous yet, so I'm bumping it. Hope this doesn't bother anybody.
Wow that was a real tome, and I would just like to note, devoting such time, bandwidth etc to a troll/shill is exactly the wrong response (aka your "taking the bait... that is, the response they seek-- to waste everyone's time and send folks down useless rabbit holes which lead nowhere productive. The steaming turds posted by 911Blimp, Amanda Reckonwith etc should be ignored entirely by folks interested in propagating 911-Truth rather than getting bogged down in quicksand.
Focus on WTC7, the multiple pentagon videos withheld, stock put options, PNAC docs.... matters of little/no dispute. Ignore flashes and blue screens and holograms etc.
" "the confession video is
" "the confession video is fake"
You guys are hurting the 9/11 truth cause when you repeat that. Listen carefully to that tape. There is no confession. "
It is called a "confession tape" because the authorities have used it as a proof that bin Laden was behind the attacks. It is different from the earlier tapes, in which bin Laden clearly states that he had nothing to do with the attacks.
To me, it's almost certain that the person in the video is not bin Laden. As regards the media, I'm really astonished how "anything goes".
HLN Showbiz Tonight's A.J.
HLN Showbiz Tonight's A.J. Hammer interviews a writer and the mother of a United Flight 93 victim (April 4)
This annoying interview, which includes Mark Bingham's mother, can be viewed from CNN's main page under "Watch Free Video"
http://www.cnn.com/
If You Love Your Country,
If You Love Your Country, You Should Question 9/11:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/04/if-you-love-your-country-you-should-...
Vesa, if you're taking about
Vesa, if you're taking about the tape with the fat bin laden, there is still no confession on it, and has been no confession to date from bin Laden on ANY tape, let alone that one.
The wording on the fat bin laden tape has been spun into the context of a "bin laden confession" but if you listen carefully to what he says, he isnt actually confessing to anything.
Not arguing with your other points at all, just adding onto them.
9/11 Truth Calling
9/11 Truth Calling Oprah!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_editor_2c__060401_9_2f11_truth_c...
@ Vesa, andi, neo, regarding
@ Vesa, andi, neo, regarding the "confession tapes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
In the CNN A.J. Hammer
In the CNN A.J. Hammer interview which includes Mark Bingham's mother (link above) Mark's mother sounds rehearsed when she states that Mark called her & said, "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham..." She seems to make certain to get in that he introduced himself as "Mark Bingham."
I guess she doesn't know what her own son sounds like on the phone and he didn't want her to think he was Mark Twain or Mark Wahlberg or something.
He was just a little bit
He was just a little bit nervous, you trust me, don't you?
I found that clip on CNN
I found that clip on CNN unusual. AJ Hammer seemed to suggest as even the Mother did, that it was going to be a tough sell, 'considering all that was going on'. I think that's what Hammer said. And he stated that the overall review on the streets was negative.
And was flight 93 the one where the three last minutes of the tape was withheld from the families? I thought I had heard that once?
Fredrique, I disagree with
Fredrique,
I disagree with you for a number of reasons. First, I think there are more people who happen to pick up on my discussion with anonymous than just the two of us. Not responding to his answer to my initial post would not make my case any stronger. Lurkers with a preference to anonymous' point of view would surely think I was overruled by his arguments. Second, anonymous did come up with some points, however thin and undocumented they might have been, and I don't intend to walk away from a discussion simply because somebody disagrees and does so quite unargumented. Of course there are certain limits, but it's not like I'm going into lengthy discussions with 100% trolls like ds. Third, it has been an interesting 'test case' for real life situations. It allowed me to rehearse a reply to any stubborn "no evidence" kind of response if I were to be discussing this with a coworker or a friend. Putting all those thoughts on paper certainly clears and sharpens my mind on the subjects. Fourth, it is a good exercise for me in the English language. I can never be too skillful in the language that dominates this entire debate. Fifth and last, it really didn't take all that much time or energy.
I realize my attempt are bound to be in vain, but i do want to have that discussion with him. Not just to convince him, but I might be wrong on some points too. I don't like the idea of having myself armed with arguments that have been debunked or disproven. And I certainly don't like the way certain people here have directly or indirectly called for a global ban on all who disagree. If you look at it objectively, it's just as stupid to follow the official story blindly than it is to take anything on the 'truth' side for granted. And I feel a lot of people are doing exactly that, on both sides.
Pockybot, Gary, Re: Nafeez
Pockybot, Gary,
Re: Nafeez Ahmed;
http://www.gnn.tv/B12624
Subverting “Terrorism”
Muslim Problem or Covert Operations Nightmare?
Hey, y'all might like this
Hey, y'all might like this (other than the government trolls)...
9/11: a 7-Man Job
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-7-man-job.html
Terrence is askin' for
Terrence is askin' for it!
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/114412225406869753/#85205
zuco, thx for the reply,
zuco, thx for the reply, keep on keeping on, for myself I'm going to follow my own advice re not getting bogged down.
I got emailed a brief synopsis of D. R. Griffin's SF Commonwealth Club speech yesterday...
GriffinÂ’s speech essentially was a debunking of 10 myths that the 9/11 Commission reported. As you said it was very structured. The audience was quite receptive based on the Q&A. Most of the questions related to evidential matter, or else how people of conscience should respond to the inconsistencies. I bought a DVD covering the material, since I didnÂ’t want to make time to read the book. YouÂ’re welcome to borrow the DVD sometime. IÂ’m already convinced of official complicity. So my response has been to tell my friends that I strongly believe that 9/11 was a fraud and offer his book and other relevant articles.
I have a question for the
I have a question for the house:
I can understand using Muslim radicals as patsies in 9/11, since it plays into the plans to occupy the Middle East and the Caspian Basin.
But why would a military-industrial establishment dominated by white "Christian" right-wing militarists use a white Christian right-wing war veteran like Timothy McVeigh as a patsy in Oklahoma City?
If you want to complain
If you want to complain about David Spade's assinine behavior on Comedy Central's site, here is a link. Choose other for the show, because it's not listed.
http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml
It's time for my Amy Goodman
It's time for my Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now” rant.
I remember seeing Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed about a month ago on her show. She didn’t ask him about any of his 9/11 truth work, and he didn’t mention it either. I guess the topic of 9/11 is “verboten” on a show entitled, "Democracy Now"???
So I did a web search looking for more info on Nafeez, and I accidentally came across a Democracy Now show in which Goodman featured David Ray Griffin & his book, The New Pearl Harbor, on 5/26/04.
For some reason, Goodman also brought in a government shill, Chip Berlet, the “Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates in Summerville, MA.” All Berlet did was play devil’s advocate & spout specious, previously debunked arguments against Griffin! Why didn’t Goodman give Griffin his own interview??? Goodman has plenty of hardcore “lefties” alone on her show that she doesn’t allow hecklers to disrupt.
To top this off, I recently watched the DVD “In Memoriam: New York City, 9/11/01.” Looking closely, I spotted, of all people, Amy Goodman in the crowd a few blocks away from WTC-7. She was there, in person, watching as WTC-7 imploded! She even shrieked & scurried through the crowd as it fell. SO WHY ISN'T GOODMAN MAKING AN ISSUE THAT SHE SAW A KEY BUILDING DISINTEGRATE BEFORE HER EYES FOR NO GOOD REASON ON 9/11??? DOES THIS "LEARNED LIBERAL" THINK F*CKING WTC SKYSCRAPERS SHOULD TURN INTO RUBBLE JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT, NO EXPLANATION REQUIRED??? DOESN’T SHE THINK IT ODD THAT THE 9/11 COMMISSION WOULDN'T EVEN TOUCH WTC-7???
SHE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THIS OBVIOUS BULLSHIT???
Something very odd about
Something very odd about Mark Bingham's mother. Why would she make a point of repeating that silly line: "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham."? And she wouldn't shut up. She was very well rehearsed, if not mind-controlled. In one of the on-the-street interviews, a guy said we weren't ready for this movie because we still don't really know what happened. I quit watching Showbiz Tonight after they pulled Asner and Hicks, but maybe we should still keep an eye on the program. This is still note-worthy 9/11 related news.
"But why would a
"But why would a military-industrial establishment dominated by white "Christian" right-wing militarists use a white Christian right-wing war veteran like Timothy McVeigh as a patsy in Oklahoma City?"
A lot of people see the Oklahoma City Bombing as a "test" for 9/11... I don't know the answer to your question.
timbermonkey, Interesting
timbermonkey,
Interesting question with no easy answer, IMO.
http://www.gnn.tv/B10951
This is a good current article on OKC;
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060221_oklahoma_city_bombing/
Anti-fascist researcher Dave Emory has done a few good radio shows on what he perceives as a much broader milieu;
http://www.wfmu.org/playlists/DX
(Caveat: Emory got suckered on Iraq's WMDs, so you have to seperate the Wheat from the Chafe)
"But why would a
"But why would a military-industrial establishment dominated by white "Christian" right-wing militarists use a white Christian right-wing war veteran like Timothy McVeigh as a patsy in Oklahoma City?"
Because they aren't "dominated by white Christian right wingers" they are dominated by blood-thirsty, saddistic, Molech-worshipping Satanists.
McVeigh may have been a
McVeigh may have been a white, right-wing Christian war veteran, but he was very upset with the government over the massacre at Waco. The perfect patsy for recruitment.
Anonymous, here is some good
Anonymous, here is some good info re: Goodman and her hatchet job on Griffin.
http://www.oilempire.us/democracynow.html
Timber, as far as McVeigh...I have read some interesting crossover ties b/t Ok City and Muslims. Some people think Oklahoma City was intended to be used as a pretext for action in the middle east (the PNAC type Pearl Harbor) and would be blamed on Muslims were it not for the Clinton admin. failing to follow the plan.
"But why would a
"But why would a military-industrial establishment dominated by white "Christian" right-wing militarists use a white Christian right-wing war veteran like Timothy McVeigh as a patsy in Oklahoma City?"
Alex Jones has a video that talks about this and has a great deal of information about it.
He talks about a book being written about 2 years before the OK bombing and a person in the book whow blew up a building in OK was a character named Timmothy McVey.
A little odd that this same name was in a book with a similar event happening 2 years before the event.
Makes me wonder if that was the guys real name and if he is alive on some island somewhere???
http://www.okcbombing.org/
http://www.okcbombing.org/
Hey guys help me out
Hey guys help me out here....
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=21723&postdays=0&postorder=asc&...
Thanks for all the info re
Thanks for all the info re OKC. I'll check out the links.
To geggy: Already commented
To geggy:
Already commented here on 911blogger:
"Ha, read further. Snow calls him out on this mistake:
Q Okay. A couple of things, I think a couple of minutes ago -- I want to make sure -- you said Osama bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 planning. You meant Saddam Hussein, correct? That Saddam Hussein was not involved in September 11th?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. Yes, sir.
Q Okay.
THE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thanks for straightening that out. I didn't realize I'd done that. (Laughter.)
Q Yes. Well, otherwise we'd have a whole lot more stories to deal with.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. All right. Well, I appreciate it."
Wasn't it Sadamn Bin Laden
Wasn't it Sadamn Bin Laden that caused all that trouble?
STAY the hell AWAY from the
STAY the hell AWAY from the Mark Bingham angle!! Even if it were true it would not, say again, NOT be worth pursuing: it's the perfect "wedge" between sympathy for 9-11 families and 9-11 Truth.
I was the one who dissed Chavez and
"it's clear that Chavez will not get the respect needed in certain political quarters to open this case up"
that's why I did it. (Besides, I don't like socialists thugs, even though they are preferable to Busheviks.)
Rio Grande Blood by Ministry
Rio Grande Blood by Ministry is now on Amazon.com for pre-order.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F3AAZW/sr=8-1/qid=1144187578/ref=pd...
The song, LiesLiesLies, contains audio from Loose Change and the creators of Loose Change are supposed to do a music video for this song.
Should Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Should Rep. Cynthia McKinney face charges for her scuffle with Capitol Police?
Yes 1015 votes (92%)
No 68 votes (6%)
Not sure 17 votes (2%)
1099 people have voted so far
Vote here
http://forums.macon.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=kr-macongen&msg=1670.1&c...
Newly designed informational
Newly designed informational flyer about Loose Change. It has the movie's positive points listed and comments on other information presented.
Sifting for GOLD in LOOSE CHANGE
http://digitalstyledesigns.com/p...s/ downloads.htm
Able, I understand it would
Able,
I understand it would be hard to get a large number of Americans to embrace someone like Chavez, but I still don't understand why the man would be a thug. Is it because of his rather undiplomatic insults to Bush, or is there a political side to this.
To chime in on the McVeigh
To chime in on the McVeigh question, if it's not too late and everyone hasn't abandoned this thread: I will second the motion that these fascista are not Christians. Apparently Hitler hid under that rubric as well, but the plans were to kill the Christians after the Jews were finished off. If you will note, many of the most prominent names in the 911 movement are Christians. Many true Christians are anti-war (why not, Christ, after all, was a pacifist.) as well as pro-freedom - The Berrigan Bros. come to mind.
The right-wing Christians pose the greatest danger to the fascists, I have heard people say, and I sort of think that makes sense. I also think it's total Propaganda and bullshit that the "Christian Right" is the cornerstone of Bush support. Bush has no support. He's a dictator. The polls are gamed, imo, even when they show him at 30%. The last two elections (3 if you count the last Congressional election) were majorly gamed. The only people who support him are people who like to lick the ass of dictators. What's going on is obvious. Anyone who doesn't get it are just people who like to voluntarily submit to Law and Order, people who have been mind-f***ed since birth and are used to lies and accustomed to scoffing at anyone who is altruistic and sincere: that's why true Christains can see through it. A true Christian will respect every person and be able to listen long enough to comprehend what is going on. Those who support Bush and don't listen are ones who like government to be Big Daddy. (Or as it was in Russian , Big Mommy.)
As far as Amy Goodman: I think her level of intelligence is grossly overestimated. Though, I have seen her ask some damn good questions at times. But her bias' show so easily, especially if you watch her on TV. She can't control her emotions over the material and it comes right out on her face. She smirks almost as much as W.. And she is obviously biased against the 911 Truth movement. She not truly intelligent, or techinically minded, so I wouldn't blame her too much. She also comes across as a power nut, and I've heard stories to that effect. A power nut tends to be a control freak, and a control freak oftens lacks an imagination.
The right-wing Christian militia types are probably the only people who would potentially put up a fight, if it came to martial law and outright fascism. Those are people who are upset when their rights are infringed upon and will fight for them. Look at the pathetic Left. Some are concerned...but most are into denial, not only of 911 but of the true malevolence of W. Bush. I was the only leftist I knew of who was hip, at the time it happened, to Waco. Most couldn't care less. They went right along with the crowd which demonized Koresh.
I could rant on and on, but am going to Hick's fundraiser in Brooklyn.
Newly designed informational
Newly designed informational flyer about Loose Change. It has the movie's positive points listed and fair comments on other information presented.
Sifting for GOLD in LOOSE CHANGE
http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/downloads.htm
As for Timothy McVeigh, it
As for Timothy McVeigh, it seems that he was probably a CIA MKULTRA/Project Monarch asset... Probably brought into it from a young age, developped dissociative identity disorder from trauma inflicted on him, and so on and so forth...
On a related topic, I highly recommend the book "Trance Formation of America", written by a former MKULTRA/Project Monarch mind-controlled asset and the guy who rescued her... It has some mindblowing parts involving Cheney, the Bush family, the New World Order, and much more... Here's a PDF copy of the book, and the site of their authors:
http://www.upload2.net/download2/of2FfFeS2vZikwt/Trance_Formation_of_Ame...
http://trance-formation.com/
Enjoy.
I don't know if this is a
I don't know if this is a reliable source, but anyway, there you go, it's interesting nonetheless... From Tom Heneghan... cloakanddagger.de
"Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald continues to expand his investigation of the Valerie Plame leak case. Dots have now been connected between 9/11 and the Iraq War-Yellowcake-Bush-WD199Gate. Click for reference Cambone Notes/Udday Hussein letter to Putin.
Fitzgerald has now subpoenaed Saddam Hussein to answer questions on the noted Udday Hussein letter to Russian President Putin and communications that took place between Saddam, his late son Udday and the former NSA treason bitch now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. These conversations deal with pre-9/11, post 9/11 and pre-Iraq War.
Remember Rice traveled to Moscow to visit Putin the day after the Iraq War began. Note: Valerie Plame's CIA identity was leaked to the press the day Udday Hussein was assassinated in Iraq. Rice is now claiming executive privilege vis a vis Fitzgerald request for further testimony. Official subpoena coming forth soon.
Now one must note again that both Dunblaine pedophile Tony Blair aka British Prime Minister and Vladimir Putin have claimed diplomatic immunity vis a vis the Fitzgerald inquiry. It is then no accident that Condoleeza Rice and British Home Secretary Jack Straw flew to Iraq over the last weekend to arrange new BOX charges against Saddam Hussein. These charges are being scripted as to prevent the Fitzgerald's subpoena from having any force.
It is clear now that Saddam has been given diplomatic immunity by the U.S. State Dept. in order to avoid the Fitzgerald inquiry. Saddam now joins Blair and Putin in having immunity from prosecution.
P.S. Tom Delay's resignation from Congress and taking up Virginia residence confirms that Delay has flipped and is now cooperating with the Joint Dept. of Justice/Fitzgerald Inquiry relating to the Jack Abramoff affair. Delay has supplied evidence connecting the Sun Cruise Casino dots aka 9/11 and Florida-Gate 2000 coup d'etat. Note: Delay's evidence deals with Dallah Chairman Saleh Abdullah Kamel in the connections between the General Counsel of Islamic Banks and Greenberg Taurig. However a caution should be mentioned, Delay called extortion-friendly Mike Allen of the Washington Post to deliver his "I Quit" announcement. Question: Was Delay giving criminal Book and Snake Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward a heads up? Woodward is due back in front of the Fitzgerald Grand Jury soon in a desperate attempt to avoid indictment for perjury, obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy. Reference, Woodwards failure to use 9/11 Cambone notes in his Iraq War book Plan of Attack.
P.P.S. Sources close to the Fitzgerald inquiry report that new charges are soon to be aimed at Marc Rich attorney, Scooter Libby as well as the official announcement of the Indictments of Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley and Richard Armitage."
Peggy Carter"...Look at the
Peggy Carter"...Look at the pathetic Left. Some are concerned...but most are into denial, not only of 911 but of the true malevolence of W. Bush. I was the only leftist I knew of who was hip, at the time it happened, to Waco. Most couldn't care less. They went right along with the crowd which demonized Koresh."
Dynamite commentary re: Waco! The lefties (& everyone else too) NEVER, ever, should have let Clinton/Reno get away with the Waco murders!!! It set an exceedingly bad precedent, among other things, leading up towards our present-day dictatorship!
"I recently watched the DVD
"I recently watched the DVD “In Memoriam: New York City, 9/11/01.” Looking closely, I spotted, of all people, Amy Goodman in the crowd a few blocks away from WTC-7. She was there, in person, watching as WTC-7 imploded! She even shrieked & scurried through the crowd as it fell. SO WHY ISN'T GOODMAN MAKING AN ISSUE THAT SHE SAW A KEY BUILDING DISINTEGRATE BEFORE HER EYES FOR NO GOOD REASON ON 9/11???"
I think Amy Goodman is dumb like a fox when it comes to 9/11 being an inside job! (Seeing WTC-7 implode in person is not something one can easily forget. However, I don't think Goodman has ever mentioned that she was right there.)
Here is a telling excerpt from an article that Al Czervik linked to above:
http://www.oilempire.us/democracynow.html
During her [Goodman's] talk and the Indymedia video that preceded it, which exposed US involvement in atrocity after atrocity after atrocity throughout the world over the past 50 or more years, she [Goodman] nonetheless repeated the official story of 9/11 without introspection: "Muslim terrorists flew planes into buildings." What I heard from Amy [Goodman] was much like what I've heard from long-time activists that it was not surprising that terrorists would do this considering what the US has been doing all over the world for decades. Her [Goodman's] entire case last evening was that the US government perpetuates unthinkable deception and destruction to advance the corporate agenda throughout the world, yet not one hint in her [Goodman's] remarks that 9/11 was any other than the story from the self-same government and corporate media she so clearly understands.
Another very telling excerpt from the same link is:
"Ford Foundation funds Democracy Now and Chip Berlet....Why does the Ford Foundation - a pillar of the establishment invested in many of the corporations that Democracy Now claims to oppose - fund Democracy Now?"
(It appears that the Ford Foundation gave Democracy Now a quarter-million $$$ for the 2 years mentioned.)
Maybe this is why Goodman & other "journalists" pretend to know nothing excpet caveman Osama & his 19 lackies perpetrated 9/11???
(Please feel free to spread this info around--it makes a basic case-study about why the indy media won't go near 9/11 truth.)