What was A.J.'s big news?

I post a quote every day to my myspace people. Easter's was:

"Easter says you can put truth in a grave, but it won't stay there."
Clarence W. Hall

Just thought you'd appreciate it.

I think if Bush had been behind 9/11 he would have done a lot more to sieze dictatorial power. When Hitler and Stalin took power, all their viable political opponents were rounded up and shot within about a month, along with people who blamed them for the country's problems (Mao's purges took a little longer). But all Bush did was that Patriot Act. And if that restricts your free speech and civil liberties so much, why does has this blog continue to exist? In a totalitarian regime it would have been shut down long ago and people like Dan Avery an Micheal Moore would be long dead. But they're not; they continue to spout off this BS about the Bush administration being like hitler's or stalin's regime, causing the events of 9/11 and blaming it on others to sieze power. Yeah, right. I'll believe you when this blog gets shut down and you get taken by the gestapo. Until then, Bush was right.

I'm rather disapointed that nothing happened on the level A.J. mentioned. I suppose we'll hear about it on this Monday broadcast. I'll be sure to post it here as soon as I hear.

I have a question to yous all.
======================================
What *WILL YOU DO* after 911 came out?
======================================

Here is my approach:

I shall try to avoid being an idiot who has not learned from history. So, I read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States and VOLTAIRE'S BASTARDS (and "The Unconscious Civilisation") by John Ralston Saul and listen to Michael Parenti mp3s http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=search&nav=&session=&searchtext=mi...

I educate myself on possible organising principles for a society, so I listen to this multiple times: http://zpedia.org/Government_in_the_Future
and really try to understand it.

I observe the example of a fairly advanced society with free elections that learned the hard way what business-perverted society had done and emulate their rectifications. I read the February 1947 party-programme of the pro-military, pro-business RIGHT WING "CDU" PARTY. They (most former NAZIs) concluded: "The capitalist economic system has not met the vital social and state interests of the German people. After the terrible political, economic and social collapse which followed in the wake of a criminal power policy, only a completely new order can be established. The aim and content of this new social and economic order can no longer be profit and power-seeking capitalism, but the welfare of our people. A social economic order will provide the German people with a social and economic constitution in keeping with the rights and the dignity of man, one which serves the spiritual and material rebuilding of our nation, and which ensures both internal and external peace." http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2005/02/20050204.php

Then I choose a wise mantra-sentence to guide me: "In today's world, I think, the goals of a committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against them, while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful public participation - and ultimately, to dismantled them in a much more free society, if the appropriate circumstances can be achieved." (Noam Chomsky, Power & Prospects isbn 1-86448-112-9 page 75)

IMHO most would provisionally agree that a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is a good starting point.

Like in Germany.

Workers are paid really well and get humane perks like 6 weeks paid holidays by law, 3 years paid parental leave, generous state-pension system without banks, money creation mostly done by people-owned banks, free enterprise in a strongly regulated level playing field, along the lines of A.Ruestow http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Interessenpolitik+oder+Staatspolitik%3...

From there a FREE PARLIAMENT, elected and guided by the people who are informed by a BUSINESS-FREE PRESS, i.e. truely INDEPENDENT Journalists, could make the transition to a fair and hierarchy-free (anarchic) society.

PS: If the word ANARCHY scares you, just remember it only means that NOBODY SHOULD RULE YOU BY FORCE.

Osama's wanted by the FBI. But not, of course, for 9/11. (BTW, that web page was still up earlier this year, but now requests for that fbi.gov web page get automagically redirected to some generic Wanted page, which does have a Most Wanted Terrorist category, but Osama bin forgotten.)
______________________________________________

Q: When it comes to questioning George Bush about his repeated, well-documented, incriminating 9/11 witness statements, what's the difference between Michael Moore and Tom Delay and Cynthia McKinney (and Bob Bowman and Carol Brouillet), and the 9-11 Commission and the 'leadership' of the 911 truth movement?

A: None.
______________________________________

Take it a step further... FBI Director Robert Mueller...

"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection."

well if noone else wants to debunk 911 blimp:

However, the only known video of that event spent the day at Ground Zero, in the videographer's camera. It was first broadcast about 15 hours after it happened.

There was live coverage even on MSM longgg before the video arrived, 15 hours later, you say? Sorry, if NBC can get live coverage before the second tower gets hit*, then of course the secret service can. The images were transmitted from the WTC site to the TV stations (and the DoD transmitters) to everybody's TV (including the president's). Now that I think about it, It's probably more likely Bush watched the first attack on CNN rather than any private gov't network.

*(I know people who watched the first tower hit before 9am, on the mainstream media networks. But they must have known before hand, right??)

As far as the stuttering, it seems like Bush does that when he's saying anyhting.

9/11 hijacker clues were "meant to be found"
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011008fa_FACT

CIA allowed known Al Qaeda agents to buy 911 flight tickets
http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/04/spain-high-court-throws-ou...

Spain high court throws out three 9/11 terror convictions

Jaime Jansen at 4:44 PM ET

[JURIST] The Spanish Supreme Court [official website] has overturned the convictions of three men found guilty last year of collaborating with or belonging to al Qaeda in connection with the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The three men, Driss Chebli, Sadik Merizak, and Abdelaziz Benyaich, were convicted along with 15 other men in what was Europe's largest trial of those suspected of involvement in Sept. 11. Prosecutors from the case actually requested that the high court throw out their convictions because there was not sufficient evidence to jail the three men, and also encouraged the court to throw out a murder conspiracy conviction for the leading suspect in the case, Syrian-born Spaniard Imad Yarkas. The high court has not made a decision yet in Yarkas' appeal. He was convicted last September of conspiracy with Mohamed Atta and other members of the Hamburg, Germany-based al Qaeda cell widely suspected of orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks. Prosecutors believe that the convictions of the remaining 14 men should stand.

The 2005 trial in Spain drew widespread criticism, with many accusations that the 18 convicts were simply Islamic fanatics with no real connection to the terrorist attacks. Yarkas denied any connection to Atta throughout the trial. ...

Eric L:

Osama is listed for crimes outside the US because different laws/procedures apply to someone wanted for crimes across the globe, instead of "just" a crime on US soil.

Besides, Bush said he isn't concerned with catching Bin Laden.

Anyone watch that Dr. Jones presentation where the guy says there is someone who is suing the gov't (bush, cheney, etc...) and has military/gov't people who are willing to testify on his behalf???
Anyone have info on that?

Thanks for all the articles posted here. I just found this site a few weeks ago after the Showbiz Tonight segments on Charlie Sheen. I'm going to ask the dumb question I've wondered about for over 4 years:

What is a "boxcutter?"

This always struck me as strange, that no news story I ever saw held up a "boxcutter" to show people exactly what we're talking about. I always assumed it must be what I call (and what the packages they come in always call) a "utility knife," i.e., a metal handle that you can screw razor blades into.

Thats one thing about the Flight 93 movie that I'll be interested to see, whether the scenario of how they were supposed to have overtaken the passengers and crew with these "boxcutters" makes any sense.

So, the Spanish convictions on top of the German trials (one cleared; one conviction overturned).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2223152.stm

And all there is is Moussaoui, who as I recall had no contact with any of the "hijackers?"

Boxcutter: http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/FO08301-1.jpg

I think Professor Jones was referring to Stanley Hilton, but to my understanding, nothing ever came from Stanley Hilton's lawsuit, and nothing has ever been verified in regards to his claims.

Hi: I think you are correct in you assumptions. A boxcutter is a tool which accepts disposable razor blades, and could certainly make a formidable weapon. I guess at the time of 911, they were not expressly forbidden in airplane cabins. Regarding the Flight 93 takeover, the trailer seems to show the hijackers revealing belt bombs, and getting people to back off as a result. That would make sense. If you passengers and crew could not be certain that the belt bombs were fake, they would most likely stay back. In the absense of a bomb threat, it might be more likely for some group to try to overtake the hijackers before they could get to the cockpit.

I posted the following in response to 911blimp in another thread (without receiving a response) about Bush's "self-implicating statements":

While apparently incriminating, isn't it possible that the president's statements referring to the North Tower plane crash -- "I saw an airplane hit the tower" and "I had seen this-s uh plane fly into the first building" -- can always be explained by saying that he just meant he had seen the tower on fire on TV after the plane had crashed, ie that he used an inaccurate expression?

I'm absolutely not saying this should not be investigated, but that it may be difficult to use those statements as a proof that he really saw something that had not been shown on TV.

Boxcutter = plasic knife costing about $3.99, but it can be utilized as a weapon of mass destruction to defeat NORAD & the rest of the trillion $$$ military/industrial complex.

Anonymous,
Thanks. So, I guess it IS a utility knife. I still wonder why we've had 4 and a half years of calling a utility knife a "boxcutter." I live in New Jersey so maybe its just us but here, the common parlance would be "utility knife," just as it says on the package, which are the same packages sold every where.

I just watched one of the Lord of the Rings again last night and in those swordfights, the hero is killing Auks/Orks whatever one right after the other with a big sword. Imagine a swordfight with a utility knife.

Gothem, if sharp objects can be utilized as "formidable weapons" to take over airliners & crash them into buildings, then why did the Gov't quietly allow them back on planes about 9 months ago? Weren't such objects crucial to the entire modus operandi of the "hijackers" that day? Why take such a chance again?

"While apparently incriminating, isn't it possible that the president's statements referring to the North Tower plane crash -- "I saw an airplane hit the tower" and "I had seen this-s uh plane fly into the first building" -- can always be explained by saying that he just meant he had seen the tower on fire on TV after the plane had crashed, ie that he used an inaccurate expression?"

Vesa, although many people here don't agree with me, but I believe this is one of the BIG facts to Bush's involvement.

First, he states on multiple ocassions that he saw it before he went into the class room.

Second, the 2nd plane actually hit while he was in the classroom.

Now I don't think that a person would confuss seeing the crash at a later date/time and confuss it with the things stated in his comments.

"While apparently incriminating, isn't it possible that the president's statements referring to the North Tower plane crash -- "I saw an airplane hit the tower" and "I had seen this-s uh plane fly into the first building" -- can always be explained by saying that he just meant he had seen the tower on fire on TV after the plane had crashed, ie that he used an inaccurate expression?"

The theory is that they now have a security feature on the door to prevent this. So anything that happens in the cabin is of no concern because they can't take the cockpit.

I think it's a bunch of hooey, but that's just me.

Another TV viewer of the first hit:

http://www.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/11303

"On the TV I saw the first plane hit the towers; then I saw the second plane hit the building I was in. "

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

George J. DeSimone, Lieutenant, Engine Company 224: "It was about 8:45 or so. We were watching the morning news in the firehouse, in the back room, and we saw the first plane go ~n or photos of the first plane hit the Trade Center."

http://www.wherewereyou.org/search/?searchtype=location&searchtext=new+m...

From #1161 | Sunday, April 7th 2002:

"while we were waiting in line, the TVs were on in the lobby and we saw the first plane hit the first tower! "

What channel were all these people watching??

http://www.side-line.com/forum/threads.php?id=3065_0_20_0_C

(4th post from bottom)

"i was sleeping and got a phone call from a friend "dude, you gotta turn on the news"

i saw the first plane hit about 20 times in 3 minutes it seemed. i popped a tape into the VCR set it to record and figured i could snag some decent sampling material."

Bush has flip-flopped about whether capturing Osama Bin Laden is an important priority for his administration.

FL

FLOP: But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him. It's not that important. It's not our priority." He also did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech this year.

Bush didn't order U.S. troops into Tora Bora to capture Osama Bin Laden right after the Afghanistan invasion. Instead, he relied on warlords who were of dubious loyalty and ability to find Osama Bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda in that mountainous region. Later, when Iraq became this administration's priority, it shifted special forces from Afghanistan (where they had been searching for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda members to Iraq).

What Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:

FL

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

Washington Post, 9/17/01, UPI: Bush said he wants accused terrorist leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive.” “I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

AP, 12/14/01: President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken "dead or alive."

FLOP: Capturing OBL no longer a priority:

G.W. Bush, 3/13/02: I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availability with the Press Travel Pool, The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

RB--"The theory is that they now have a security feature on the door to prevent this. So anything that happens in the cabin is of no concern because they can't take the cockpit."

Thanks, I read something about that too. I'm not sure if they ever did anything about the pilots' need to come out & use the restroom, though, or when the stewardess has to bring them food/drink? (The whole "offical story" is such blatant b.s., you don't know where to start.)

in the United 93 preview/trailer you can see one of the hijackers revealing a a real or fascimle bomb underneath his shirt.
Also hasnt it been reported that they also used tear gas or some other gas?

so far ive heard

-box cutters only were used to take over the plane
-they used the threat of the bomb to take over the plane
-they used gas to keep the passengers in one section of the plane (how could they keep the gas from going all over the entire plane? a plane is fairly small) Did they bring gasmasks(lol)?

funny how there has not been a cohesive explanation by the 9/11 comission or anybody as to how the hijackers managed to take control of the plane.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/

united93 trailer page for those who want to see what im talking about

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27265009.shtml

Hit piece against Charlie.

Great point about the gas! Wouldn't the plane's ventilation system have spread it all over very quickly?

http://www.wherewereyou.org/search/index.php?start=20&searchtype=age&sea...

#540 | Wednesday, December 19th 2001
September 11, 2001 was my 38th birthday.
I was home when it happen. I was cleaning house and had the TV news on like always. When I saw the first plane hit the first tower, I could not believe what I was seeing, at first I though it was an accident, but I knew something was wrong because planes are not allowed to fly through there, and then when I saw the second plane hit the other tower, I just stood there paralized from head to toe

who are these people?
what happened to them?

http://www.unitedheroes.com/whot...hotheywere.html

http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/sept13_01/wmarin_response.html

"Dave Wilson, manager of Papermill Creek Saloon in Forest Knolls: "I was at home, and I was watching the news. I saw the first plane hit, and I thought it was an accident. Then I saw the second hit and saw the buildings melt like an ice cream cone. "

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

"I saw the first plane go into the tower on
television. I was at home, and I was getting ready to come in to
the World Trade Center. I had an 11:00 appointment on the 67th
floor of the World Trade Center, tower number one.

So I saw the first plane go in on

television. I called Ray Goldbach and said thereís a plane into
the Trade Center. Then I said Iím going in there."

Jon:

I wrote back to that nationalledger article:

You said:
But when you make outrageous claims with nothing more than propaganda to back up said claims - expect to be attacked. Other people get to speak as well - and Sheen needs to understand that.

Propaganda? Eyewitness Testimony, Government Testimony? Documented Evidence? A total lack of a criminal investigation? Destruction and disposal of evidence before it could be inspected? Lies about the air quality in New York after 9/11? THIS IS PROPAGANDA???

http://www.belvoir.army.mil/news.asp?id=purple

“It was business as usual as the day started,” [Jacqueline Marie Kidd, Specialist, United States Army] recalled of Sept. 11. “My co-worker, Mr. [Sean] Boger, and I normally watch the news every morning because it’s pretty slow, so we got word of the attack in New York. When we saw the first plane hit, our reaction as controllers was: ‘Who messed up?’ We were wondering if it was a pilot’s error or a controller’s error because we knew the traffic pattern ran pretty close to the buildings, so we were discussing the possibilities of what it could be.”

http://www.ksusentinel.com/media/storage/paper402/news/2003/09/10/News/M...

Inga Wilson

"I was at home watching the news when I saw the first plane hit."

Comic Artists Turn '9/11 Report' Into Graphic Novel http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192009,00.html

http://www.news8austin.com/content/special_coverage/yogurt_shop_murders/...

A former Harvard professor testified Tuesday that our memories are fallible, easily corrupted and often influenced by others.

Dr. Robert Schomer said that memories are formed either by observation or by creation. Memories are a chemical process, he said, of turning a neurological signal into a chemical codes stored in the brain.

Schomer was called to the stand show that Michael Scott could have created false memories while being interrogated on Sept. 9, 1999.

Schomer's example of memory creation was Sept. 11, 2001. He said a survey showed that 75 percent of respondents said they saw the first plane crash into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. But that is a false memory because that video wasn't shown until the next day.

http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/nichols.htm

"My version of what took place on September 11th was a little different than my wife’s. We were watching TV and we saw the first plane hit, and we both said, “Oh, that was an accident.”

And then after the next plane hit, we knew that it was a terrorist attack. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2002/09/10/911stories4.DTL

"We were watching the morning news when we saw the first plane hit the World Trade Center."

More WTC 7 Proof?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/arce.focus/

"We kept walking, filed a story from two blocks north of the burning building.

We heard another explosion and heard a firefighter yell, "That building's going to come down, too." A third building had been crushed under the debris of the collapsing Twin Towers and was ravaged by flames.

Shortly after we began to move away, the building we'd just been near would also collapse. Boom. It just came down.

We saw a firefighter who had just come from trying to rescue people at ground zero, but he had been turned back by the impending collapse.

"What did it look like? What did it feel like at the base of the building?" I asked.

"Very hot, pitch dark, couldn't see anything," he said. "A lot of rebar and broken glass and a lot of brick. Not really much smoke. Just debris."

Time plays tricks on people's memories.... NO, you didn't see the first plane hit. There were no cameras focused on the WTC when the attack came. Later....much later, a film crew that was in the area released their films that had caught the attacks.

The first TV crews filmed the towers AFTER they were hit. We all then saw the second plane hit.

I would hate to have some of you folks on my jury panel if I ever was falsely accused of a crime.

Jesse,
Thats a good article and a good point. Not at all necessary to answer the questions that the 9/11 Commission either didn't answer or did a lousy job of answering.

BUSH did kill his number one political enemy after 9-11. His name was Paul Wellstone and he died in a mysterious plane crash. Cynthia Mckinney - better watch your back.

Reg writes: "Time plays tricks on people's memories.... NO, you didn't see the first plane hit. "

Who is this comment addressed to?

a) the various people who claim to have seen the hit on live TV, or

b) George Bush, personally, or

c) both?

pw--"One side note regarding the actions of a novice pilot attempting to hit the Pentagon: If you were throwing a dart at a toilet seat, would you aim at the side of the seat or would you aim down at the top of the seat, you knowÂ…the part that many men try to avoid hitting? Any pilot - especially a less skilled one - looking at the Pentagon as the target of a projectile, surely would have planned a simple, top-down, dive-bomb approach. The Pentagon is shaped like a set of of toilet seats, one smaller than the other, each one residing in the void of the next larger. The side of the Pentagon is 77′ high yet the topside surface target space is approximately 29 acres. What would anyone reasonably aim for - a 29 acre target or the relatively miniscule one - on the ONLY reinforced section of the building designed to withstand a frontal attack?"...

A simple, yet very good analogy! Also, the "pilots" made it all way back from the Ohio/Kentucky border, no less. Were any of these guys named James Bond?

pw:

that's what i have been saying....

don't speculate, interrogate!

this town needs an enema.

we should contact him and ask him the details of how they show the terrorists taking control of the plane and/or find a script of the movie so we can determine exactly what lies they are going to be showing in the film before it comes out.

this way we can start fighting the lies as a premptive attack (heh) against the film.

robbie

I like this idea! this is the best way to do an attack...we must plan it all they way through and see every possible angle.

Hey, if "Flight 93" wins an Oscar for Best Screenplay, I wonder if Cheney will accept the award? : )

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_media_spins_kimmel_comment...

Media spins Sheens comments on Kimmel

I thought it was interesting that on last nights episode of Sopranos the main characters daughter said that 9/11 was just a pretext to take away all our freedoms and that we were all falling for it..................

road66,

i'll be watching the sopranos episode tonight, if i hear the quote ill grab it.

"The posts about people claiming they saw the first hit on live TV were just made to illustrate how many people claimed what Bush also claimed, not trying to prove anything beyond that..."

I don't think Bush's statements can be used as any kind of proof, considering how the human mind operates based on these examples of numerous people seeing "the first plane hit".

Vesa writes "I don't think Bush's statements can be used as any kind of proof, considering how the human mind operates based on these examples of numerous people seeing "the first plane hit".

This was precisely the point behind posting all those examples, FYI, not as a disinfo exercise.

"I think if Bush had been behind 9/11 he would have done a lot more to sieze dictatorial power."

Just wait for he next attack. Won't be long now...

"I'll believe you when this blog gets shut down and you get taken by the gestapo."

Great standard of vigilance you have there, buddy. Freedom thanks you.

u2r2h, if you plan to exploit the aftermath of 9/11 Truth to attemp to introduce socialism to the United States, you're an asshole.

I think 'Josiah' may be a genuine seeker of information, go easy on him for a while.

AmandaReconwith, on the other hand, is a kook out to harm the Truth.

"[Omission Commission comic book] it becomes more immediately clear the catastrophic nature of it all in a more gripping way than you might get from the report itself"

Really heroic, those comic book "artists", spreading the lies.

If Bush was in the classroom whilst the second plane hit, then it is odd that he should say he saw the first plane hit the tower.

I can understand people watching the rolling news coverage mixing this up.

From memory, the 1st plane footage wasn't aired on TV, until a couple of days after.

"If Bush was in the classroom whilst the second plane hit, then it is odd that he should say he saw the first plane hit the tower."

That was my point. He specifically stated that he watched it before going into the class room 2x's. He was in the classroom at the time of the second plane hitting.

I doubt it would be a simple mixup! How can he claim that since he was in the class room at the time, and was not watching it on TV at the time. This way one might get the two mixed up, but when he could not have seen the second plane hit how can he get that mixed up?

The implications are that he viewd this on a secure private video link.

I see this gaffe, in the same context as Rumsfeld's classic:

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Centre. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

Donald Rumsfeld

Well, Alex Jones didn't say anything pertaining to his comment on Friday's show. I suppose he could have been talking about Kimmmel's show and since we were already aware of it didn't make that connection... :P

I think the 'I saw the first plane hit!', 'And then we pulled it' Silverstein quote, and other stuff...as much as I think there is total US complicity, is taken out of context.

I also feel Bush was most likely not in on 9/11, and was genuinely frightened on 9/11. People saying "Bush did it" or pretty naive. No, "Bush" didnt do it.
Bush most likely had no idea about 9/11 til it was unfolding. He is simplyu a puppet with which the elite can make people think they are just a bunch of incompetant idiots. But we know better.

pockybot, too each his own!

I have no doubt that Bush was in on it! There is no way that he had no idea what was coming. It's true that he's not that smart, but he's not that dumb either.

I bet that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolferitz?, and Jeb Bush were all in on it.

Bush claimed well before he was president that if given the chance he was going to attack Iraq. This was his best opportunity to do what he wanted to do, so I think he went along to get what he wanted as well.

pockybot: Why do you try to make excuses for Silverstein's "pull-it" line? You seem to have an agenda, and 9/11 truth is not part of it.

There really isn't any point in debating if Bush was in on it at first. The point is that Bush is obviously in on it now and thats all that matters.

"Vesa writes 'I don't think Bush's statements can be used as any kind of proof, considering how the human mind operates based on these examples of numerous people seeing "the first plane hit'.

This was precisely the point behind posting all those examples, FYI, not as a disinfo exercise."

Of course not. I think it was a good point, although it could have been posted in fewer posts. :)

"pockybot: Why do you try to make excuses for Silverstein's "pull-it" line? You seem to have an agenda, and 9/11 truth is not part of it."

Most likely he realizes that Silverstein's comment has nothing to do with pulling the building down.

Only conpiracy whackos who don't want to believe in facts and evidence hold on to the fantasy that Silverstein meant "pull the building down."

You're one of those.

lower-case anonymous! you're trolling everywhere! how sky king like of you!

If Silverstein meant the firemen should leave the building or leave the area near the building, he would have said, "pull-out" or "pull-back", not "pull-it." (The shyster even spoke out of the side of his mouth and jerked his neck when he said "pull-it.")

Re: FLIGHT 587

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/25379.html

Question 1 (physics)

What has the power to dislodge BOTH ENGINES and snap-off the stabilizer CLEAN?

Question 2 (human involvement logic)

We all feel it was done on purpose.

Maybe to frighten the foreign AIRLINE operators. They knew too much about 911-planes and needed killer-message to shut up, and fear:
(message: "we can do this to anyone, anytime, we have no scrupels!")

About seeing the first plane hit, and Anonymous' frantic effort to throw in every google result in a seperate post:

It is quite a different thing who you ask it and when you ask it. If everything is correct, Bush didn't see anything until after couragously attempting to decipher My Pet Goat. It doesn't matter if he said first or second, on which tv he thinks he saw it, whether he really thought it was a bad pilot. He clearly stated several times he saw it on tv before he entered the classroom. There's no cognitive fuckups in that one.

So Anonymous, kindly **** off with your continuous brainwash-style derailing efforts.