you've been having a 403 for almost 4 hours

Definitely need a dedicated server, this site is so popular now. I'm sure many people will contribute to the running costs.

Just a bit off topic and this may have been mentioned here already, but in the UK on ITV 1 about an hour and a half ago there was a section from NBC which seemed to be from this famous hanger with all the WTC debris in it. I had the sound turned down for nearly all of it before I realised what I was looking at and only really caught the end of it anyway but they said they were preparing this for a memorial.

As well as the columns, there was some long shots of enormous lumps of red rusty slag metal that had obviously been previously molten, these looked like the pictures from Steve Jones' paper.

They said they only had 1% of the material from the WTC there.

I don't know if anyone recorded it but looked very interesting.

I've yet to see anyone offer a reasonable explanation as to why the "hijackers" who had dubious flying skills, would fly AA-11 & UA-175 out of Boston to hit targets all the way in NYC; and also why they would try to bring AA-77 & UA-93 all the way back from Ohio to hit targets in DC???

There is far too much additional risk involved in flying all those hundreds & hundreds of unnecessary miles!!!

I certainly don't advocate false-flag attacks, but if you're nut jobs like Bush/Cheney & must do one, couldn't you do fake ones??? Why involve real people??? Use your imagination a little.

For example, couldn't you crash some airliner-looking drones into ocean liners or military ships with manikins on deck??? Why the hell must you use real buildings with real people like the WTC???

The plus side of this web site being down is knowing, even without being told, that it was a problem of radically increased usage. This warms me considerably, after having been angered by that ABC stuff tonight. (Yes, I promised someone I would sit through it to take notes about "errors", difficult to do in some ways because, in the movie, there was no there there. Trying to find any really relevant detail in that movie was like trying to grab a handful of cloud.

The other plus side is coming back to find many, many new stories about 9/11 truth coverage and events. Thank you, folks.... all of you.

In addition to the ABC propaganda, I also caught the new "9/11: Press for Turth". Wonderful, wonderful... Thanks, Kyle. Thanks to all involved. Thanks to the Jersey Moms. Say what you will about all of them, but they opened the door a long time ago. The rest of us have been following on...

A friend of mine could tell you how angry I was when I finished the evening of watching the ABC movie with the Presidential advertisement. I took 15 minutes afterwards to finish the dishes and start the laundry before I could calm down enough to bring myself to speak. Charles Gibson pointed out that the White House said the Presidential address wasn’t a political speech (perhaps one of the few moments of humor in the evening). How can it not be political just weeks ahead of an election, the President’s approval ratings in the dumps, and some polls reporting that now, for the first time, over 50% of the population has severe doubts about the official story? How can the event be anything but propaganda when there are 12-15 books and movies in circulation which poke enough holes in the “official story” to fly a plane through… or whatever it was.

The man in the oval room said “we saw courage…” but failed to note his own lack of it that morning.

He noted that just last month “we” had foiled a plot in the UK, with no acknowledgement that this false terror alert was shown to be another hunk of fiction within days.

He arrogantly threw it all in our face yet again by speaking of freedom as “an old man” voting in an election, yet ignored multiple reports and incontrovertible evidence that the last two Presidential elections were scams.

He used some flourishes of language …”the desert of despotism”… “the fertile gardens of liberty”, but failed to explain why we have to give up our liberties in order to create them for others, or why it was necessary to give up our freedoms so that we could line the pockets of war profiteers.

The film itself was nothing but more of the “shock and awe” psy-ops, a repetitive renewal of our stress and fear, a repetition of the terror and the pain. I am not surprised that most Americans chose not to watch it. I hope and trust that America is wiser now, and that they will act on their new wisdom.

It bears repeating again that the expertise of the Commission’s executive director is in the realm of myth-making, and this unprecedented television event is simply a modern-day exemplar of the work of Sergei Eisenstein and Leni Riefenstahl, two film-makers who “wrote the book” on how to use film as propaganda. Some of the video shots were designed very specifically to lend credibility and to intimate the power of source, yet there is no mention of how significant doubt has been cast on the credibility of these same sources.

I had a range of comments, questions and observations when the evening was done:

We were told that four boxcutters were purchased for $10.86, but we were not told the pricetag of our response, the Iraq war, now measured somewhere above $400,000,000,000. Nor were we told how much we’ve budgeted in the years prior to 9/11 for intelligence budgets, military budgets, etc., or how those budgets have been increased, nor where that money has gone. Nobody mentioned the millions of dollars that mysteriously changed hands that morning.

Did you see the movie? Who played the part of Jerome Hauer?

We were shown a scene of one of the hijackers in the bathtub, but we weren’t told what was going on there. We were only left to assume or presume, but I’d like to hear from someone who speaks the language and comes from the culture and practices that faith as to whether what we saw was consistent mindset, language and behavior. But that’s not the point, is it? We are only supposed to hate and despise that which is different from us.

We were shown the scene in which the FISA request was denied for Moussaoui, a slap in the face given the NSA issues, the recent court rulings, et al. We were not told that, at that time, such FISA requests were granted routinely.

I had to step away for a moment (there were no commercials, so no opportunity for the necessary quick breaks in a 2+-hour event served with coffee), but did they show the part where the fellow from the Pakistani ISI came to Washington, didn’t they?

Did they show the meeting of the Carlyle Group, with members of the bin Laden family and George Herbert Walker Bush, in Washington on 9/10/01? Did they show the breakfast meeting the next morning?

Did they show the announcement by Rumsfeld the night before about the missing $2.3 trillion?

They did manage to hit all the “memes” and themes in the official myth. I was surprised when they even put in the line “is this real world, or exercise?” but I didn’t expect them to cover the war games in detail. They did mention the war games when I was in the bathroom, didn’t they? All of them, right? How many were there?

They had John O’Neill mention that “this was a crime scene” but never bothered to describe how and why it was never treated as a crime scene.

They repeated the phrasing frequently “we’re sorry, all circuits are busy now” enough that the audience surely understood that this was an unusual day for communications. I guess the same was true of NORAD and the FAA, too, huh? “We’re sorry, but all circuits are busy now”.

I know that coffee sometimes has disproportionate effect on the human body, so I must have missed the part with Bush at the Booker School. They did show that, didn’t they?

Oh, and who played Mrs. Cheney in the scene in the PEOPS?

And did you hear General Myers explain that the closest interceptors were in Detroit? That explains it. Detroit? All the way out there in Detroit? Nothing about Syracuse? Nothing about Otis AFB? Nothing about Langley? “Sir”, said the Vice President, presumably to the President (at least he said it was the President), “the fighters are up and they want to know what to do!” But of course there is no mention that even the 9/11 Commission can’t absolutely document and verify that such a conversation ever took place between the White House and Air Force One. (“We’re sorry, but all circuits are busy now”.) Oh, that must be why the President and the Vice President had to testify together, without swearing an oath, with no recordings save one note-taker (and those notes having to be cleared by the White House before they could be published). “Yes, we most certainly did have that discussion, Mr. Commissioner. He says so. I said so. Case closed.”

And did you catch that scene out at Shanksville, the demise of Flight 93? The entire scene lasted three seconds… the image fading off into misty, mythical nothingness… the debris scattering over an 8-mile stretch of terrain when the plane crashed… the engine bouncing away from the impact zone…. I guess that was in there in the third 60 milliseconds of the scene.

The next scene, the last scene, was the recounting of the “report cards” of the 9/11 Commission. Talk about time compression! Wow! 443 days went by before they formed the Commission, over the objections of the White House. Not a word, not an image, not a moment given over to the hearings, the testimony, the report. The Commission reviewed countless documents and held hours and hours of hearings. All of that was covered by ABC in precisely 0 seconds.

-- --

One very specific place you might place your attention is on Jamie Gorelick:

"Earlier in her career, Ms. Gorelick was Vice Chair of the Task Force on Audit, Inspection and Investigation Components of the Department of Defense.” Gorelick also played a critical role in the privatization of prisons as described in the article at http://dunwalke.com .

As Deputy Attorney General, "One of her principal priorities was to help prepare the Justice Department to be able to respond effectively to the new challenges of “transnational crime and terrorism. To do this, she forged new relationships and administrative protocols with the Departments of State, Treasury and Defense, and with the intelligence community." In 1997, she received "an award from the Director of Central Intelligence."

FrontPageMagazine.com | May 25, 2004, in the article "How Chinagate Led to 9/11"
[ http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13516 ] says the following:

As the 9/11 Commission tries to uncover what kept intelligence agencies from preventing September 11, it has overlooked two vital factors: Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton. Gorelick, who has browbeaten the current administration, helped erect the walls between the FBI, CIA and local investigators that made 9/11 inevitable. However, she was merely expanding the policy Bill Clinton established with Presidential Decision Directive 24. What has been underreported is why the policy came about: to thwart investigations into the Chinese funding of Clinton’s re-election campaign, and the favors he bestowed on them in return.

In April, CNSNews.com staff writer Scott Wheeler reported that a senior U.S. government official and three other sources claimed that the 1995 memo written by Jamie Gorelick, who served as the Clinton Justice Department’s deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997, created "a roadblock" to the investigation of illegal Chinese donations to the Democratic National Committee. But the picture is much bigger than that. The Gorelick memo, which blocked intelligence agents from sharing information that could have halted the September 11 hijacking plot, was only the mortar in a much larger maze of bureaucratic walls whose creation Gorelick personally oversaw.

It’s a story the 9/11 Commission may not want to hear, and one that Gorelick – now incredibly a member of that commission – has so far refused to tell. But it is perhaps the most crucial one to understanding the intentional breakdown of intelligence that led to the September 11 disaster.

Nearly from the moment Gorelick took office in the Clinton Justice Department, she began acting as the point woman for a large-scale bureaucratic reorganization of intelligence agencies that ultimately placed the gathering of intelligence, and decisions about what – if anything – would be done with it under near-direct control of the White House. In the process, more than a dozen CIA and FBI investigations underway at the time got caught beneath the heel of the presidential boot, investigations that would ultimately reveal massive Chinese espionage as millions in illegal Chinese donations filled Democratic Party campaign coffers.

When Gorelick took office in 1994, the CIA was reeling from the news that a Russian spy had been found in CIA ranks, and Congress was hungry for a quick fix. A month after Gorelick was sworn in, Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 24. PDD 24 put intelligence gathering under the direct control of the president’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to govern (that is, stifle) intelligence sharing and cooperation between intelligence agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, intelligence sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare that required negotiating a befuddling bureaucracy that stopped directly at the President’s office.

First, the directive effectively neutered the CIA by creating a National Counterintelligence Center (NCI) to oversee the Agency. NCI was staffed by an FBI agent appointed by the Clinton administration. It also brought multiple international investigations underway at the time under direct administrative control. The job of the NCI was to “implement counterintelligence activities,” which meant that virtually everything the CIA did, from a foreign intelligence agent’s report to polygraph test results, now passed through the intelligence center that PDD 24 created.

NCI reported to an administration-appointed National Counterintelligence Operations Board (NCOB) charged with “discussing counterintelligence matters.” The NCOB in turn reported to a National Intelligence Policy Board, which coordinated activities between intelligence agencies attempting to work together. The policy board reported “directly” to the president through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The result was a massive bureaucratic roadblock for the CIA – which at the time had a vast lead on the FBI in foreign intelligence – and for the FBI itself, which was also forced to report to the NCOB. This hampered cooperation between the two entities. All this occurred at a time when both agencies were working separate ends of investigations that would eventually implicate China in technology transfers and the Democratic Party in a Chinese campaign cash grab.

And the woman charged with selling this plan to Congress, convincing the media and ultimately implementing much of it? Jamie Gorelick.

Many in Congress, including some Democrats, found the changes PDD 24 put in place baffling: they seemed to do nothing to insulate the CIA from infiltration while devastating the agency’s ability to collect information. At the time, Democrat House Intelligence Chairman Dan Glickman referred to the plan as “regulatory gobbledygook." Others questioned how FBI control of CIA intelligence would foster greater communication between the lower levels of the CIA and FBI, now that all information would have to be run through a multi-tier bureaucratic maze that only went upward.

Despite their doubts, Gorelick helped the administration sell the plan on Capitol Hill. The Directive stood.

But that wasn’t good enough for the Clinton administration, which wanted control over every criminal and intelligence investigation, domestic and foreign, for reasons that would become apparent in a few years. For the first time in Justice Department history, a political appointee, Richard Scruggs – an old crony or Attorney General Janet Reno’s from Florida – was put in charge of the Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR). OIPR is the Justice Department agency in charge of requesting wiretap and surveillance authority for criminal and intelligence investigations on behalf of investigative agencies from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. The court’s activities are kept secret from the public.

A year after PDD 24, with the new bureaucratic structure loaded with administration appointees, Gorelick drafted the 1995 memo Attorney General John Ashcroft mentioned while testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The Gorelick memo, and other supporting memos released in recent weeks, not only created walls within the intelligence agencies that prevented information sharing among their own agents, but effectively walled these agencies off from each other and from outside contact with the U.S. prosecutors instrumental in helping them gather the evidence needed to make the case for criminal charges.

The only place left to go with intelligence information – particularly for efforts to share intelligence information or obtain search warrants – was straight up Clinton and Gorelick’s multi-tiered chain of command. Instead, information lethal to the Democratic Party languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind Gorelick’s walls.

There’s more at the link but, as the article notes at the end, the 9/11 Commission failed to ask her to testify; she was one of the Commissioners… and one of the only two Commissioners allowed to see all of the classified documents provided to the Commission.

-- --

The President said earlier in the evening that the world will be safer when…

Tonight we experienced one of the lowest moments of a free people and a great nation.

The world will be safer when the American people stand up and say “Enough!”.

Rense.com is reporting that Stephan Jones has been suspended?

CNN has a video up right now called 'Pentagon conspiracy theories'.. i cant watch it here at work though..

on their main page there is 'Latest News' and 'Watch Video', click the 'most popular' tab under 'Watch Video'.. it should be listed there.

Jack Blood did a fantastic job reporting live at the protests yesterday as well. I didn’t think he was as good as this actually, superb!! Dylan’s on the show to, it’s all live from the protests in NY City I think.

Check it out;

http://nw0.info/files/Radio/Jack%20Blood%20Radio%20Archive/2006/Septembe...