Can You Show That 9/11 Was An "Inside Job" Without...

Mentioning any of the following:

1) Controlled Demolition
2) A Missile Struck The Pentagon
3) Mini-Nukes At The WTC
4) "TV Fakery"
5) Evidence Was Planted
6) Video/Audio Are Fake
7) Witnesses Are Actors

This is a simple exercise to show people that knowledge is power.


When "Bojinka" was discovered in 1995, the "other" plot discovered on Yousef's laptop was a plot to crash commercial jets into buildings.

Some evil folks merely overlayed the extra stuff;

(you might want to archive the above link, it's on the way down the memory hole)


That shows that Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush, Ari Fleischer and Dick Cheney were all lying when they said there were no warnings, and they had no idea.

But does that prove 9/11 was an "inside job?"

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Forknowledge, Wargames,

Forknowledge, Wargames, Insider Trading.
All provable.

Silverstein profits, Israeli agents dance and Muslims are blame

How much more obvious does it need to be?

So you're saying...

That Larry Silverstein was the sole beneficiary of the attacks of 9/11 alongside Israel, and that proves that 9/11 was an "inside job?"

First, neither Silverstein or Israel were the sole beneficiaries of the attacks.

Second, Israel does not control the United States military, and neither does Larry Silverstein.

That seems like a reach to me.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

they control the congress(to

they control the congress(to a large degree) and by extension the ability to wage war.

Failed Air Defenses - and the Coverup

Only the US government could create the circumstances necessary to prevent the air force from protecting america on 9/11.

Now - if the 9/11 attacks had ONLY been against the WTC - I perhaps would believe that our air defenses had been caught "by suprise." Maybe.

But - the Pentagon? The Pentagon was struck at 9:40?

This is clearly impossible. It is impossible that our air defenses could have such a catastrophic breakdown and comedy of errors, as told by the official story.

The subsequent coverup and lies are further indications of intentionality.

Even if one were to believe that this catastrophic breakdown could take place - the government's disinterest in discovering HOW and WHY it took place is inexplicable.

And General Eberhardt (spelling) who was in charge of NORAD - and ultimately responsible for the worst breakdown in air defenses in USA history was PROMOTED to head up NorthCom - charged with defending the entire North American continent.

And lastly - it is simply TOO much to believe that the attacks took place the same day multiple war games mirrored the attacks. Yet - on the same day these oh-so-important war games are taking place - all of our chain of command is off shooting pool somewhere - unaware of the attacks or the actual games.

Now - wouldn't it make sense for all of those generals and the defense secretary himself to have been in the "warroom" monitoring the wargames?

question - how often do we send all our fighter jets over northern Canada to intercept imaginary Russians.

Answer - once a year.

so where was the chain of command?

General Winfield (who was in chane of the 'war roiom') asked to be 'relieved' in the war room the night before 9/11. General Meyers - acting head of the joint chiefs of staff was in a meeting unaware and unresponsive to the attacks? Rumsfeld was sitting at his desk? Bush was..... ya know.



and when an actual attack takes place - none of them respond?

and now the 9/11 Commission announces that they considered criminal charges against NORAD for KNOWINGLY giving them false information - which they published in their report anyway?

who HAS been held accounatable?

Our failed air defenses are the smoking guns of 9/11. It is just not possible that 9/11 could have happened in the way that we are being told.

I agree...

That our failed air defenses are a "smoking gun."

Especially when you take into account that the 9/11 Report failed to mention all but one Wargame that was taking place that day.

Especially when you take into account that when Michael Kane confronted Gen. Eberhardt about the Wargames, his response was "No Comment."

Especially when you take into account that when Cynthia McKinney asked for a written response to her questions regarding the Wargames, she didn't get one.

Especially when you take into account that when Cynthia McKinney got her second chance to question Rumsfeld and Myers about the Wargames, Myers refused to say who was in charge of those Wargames.

Especially when you take into account all of the reports of confusion as a result of those Wargames taking place that day.

Especially when you take into account that some of those Wargames mimicked the very same "attacks" that were taking place that day.

Yes, our failed air defenses are definitely a "smoking gun."

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Hey John...

Tell us about Michael Springmann and the Visa Express program.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Do you mean stuff like this?

Do you mean stuff like this? It is from a press conference held back in June 2002 (!) at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.:

Next up was Michael Springmann, an attorney with 20 years of government service, who had been head of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Springmann reported that at least 100 visas he had denied were eventually issued by consular officials that were known CIA agents, or persons Springmann suspected were CIA agents.

He denied visas to two Pakistanis who wanted to go to a trade show, but didn't know what trade show they were going to, or even what city it was in. He denied visa approval for a Sudanese individual he felt had no legitimate reason for entering the U.S. but was overruled by a consular official, who said "we need him" for national security reasons.

While this was going on in the late-'80s Springmann thought he was witnessing "visa fraud," believing that people were paying bribes to officials to get visas they would otherwise be denied. He later found he was wrong. What Springmann actually saw was the CIA bringing terrorists into the United States for training against the Soviet Union's troops in Afghanistan. He believes this is still going on and points out that 15 of the 19 named 9-11 hijackers got their visas in Jeddah at, in one of the more amazing Freudian slips in history, what Springmann calls the "CIA consulate."

He points out that all of these visas were issued under the "visa express" program, a system under which questionable visa paperwork is mingled with large amounts of ordinary paperwork in the hope it will sail through unnoticed. Celerino Castillo, former Drug Enforcement Agency officer says the "visa express" program was commonly used for CIA assets in Central America. Springmann rattled off a long list of major mainstream media outlets he has approached with his story. Not one has expressed any interest.

It is simply amazing what the early truth seekers had already digged out and brought to light! Latecomers like myself need to go back into the archives and do some read up. And consider to spread that "old material" to the truth digging newbies now coming to our ranks, by republishing it on and elsewhere...


Just like that...

When was the Visa Express program initiated, and which countries participated?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Visa Express...

The Visa Express program was a U.S. State Department program that allowed residents of Saudi Arabia to enter the U.S. without proving their identities. It became controversial when some of the 9/11 hijackers used this program to gain entry into the country, and the program was eventually shut down.

In the Spring and Summer of 2001, the terror level in the U.S. was reportedly "off the charts". The U.S. had recently concluded that Saudi Arabia was one of four top nationalities of al-Qaeda members.

Despite all this, the U.S. introduced the Visa Express program in May of 2001. This program allowed Saudi Arabian residents, including non-citizens., to get valid visas through a travel agency using a much less restrictive standard than would have otherwise been required They did not have to submit a proof of identity, but only had to provide a photograph and fill out a short form. A senior State Department official described the program as "an open-door policy for terrorists." No other country had this system to facilitate easy entry into the country.


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Your source?

Your source(s)?

Are these quotes?

I just...

Went to Wiki, but it's available elsewhere...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

To be fair...

The 9/11 Report did mention the Visa Express Program...

In June, the State Department initiated the Visa Express program in Saudi Arabia as a security measure, in order to keep long lines of foreigners away from vulnerable embassy spaces.

The program permitted visa applications to be made through travel agencies, instead of directly at the embassy or consulate.

Just not all of it.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Wiki? Which Wiki?

Wiki? Which Wiki?


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

That Wiki is called

That Wiki is called "Wikipedia" -:-)

(You made me suspect that the 911 movement somewhere had its own Wiki site)..

Can you please

clarify as to why controlled demo is on this list? Thank you.



It's used the most. I wanted to see people make other arguments for a change.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

okay, thought so, just wanted to clarify


Cheney/NORAD Mineta testimony

The failed air defenses mentioned in the above post, I think, is the most compelling second to the demolition evidence.


the wargames is what got me

the wargames is what got me started, i think it can be a great door opener to the subject..

As they should have...

(8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.): NORAD Personnel Mistake Hijacking for Part of an Exercise Major Kevin Nasypany.[Source: CBC]
When Boston flight control first contacts NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) to notify it of the hijacking of Flight 11 (see (8:37 a.m.)), personnel there initially mistake it for a simulation as part of an exercise. Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise currently taking place (see (6:30 a.m.)), later says that initially she and everybody else at NEADS thought the call was part of Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Although most of the personnel on the NEADS operations floor have no idea what the day’s exercise is supposed to entail, most previous major NORAD exercises included a hijack scenario. [Utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004; USA Today, 4/18/2004] The day’s exercise is in fact scheduled to include a simulated hijacking later on. Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS mission crew commander, had helped design it. Thinking the reported hijacking is part of this exercise he actually says out loud, “The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.” In the ID section, at the back right corner of the NEADS operations floor, technicians Stacia Rountree, Shelley Watson, and Maureen Dooley, react to the news. Rountree asks, “Is that real-world?” Dooley confirms, “Real-world hijack.” Watson says, “Cool!” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold, who is at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also says that when he first hears of the hijacking, in the minutes after NEADS is alerted to it, “The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?” [ABC News, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003] At 8:43 a.m., Major James Fox, the leader of the NEADS Weapons Team, comments, “I’ve never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Going to show my ignorance here, but . . .

wasn't there a 2-hour delay between the time the WTC was hit and the time the Pentagon was hit? Help me out, experts, please.

Not quite

but is was nearly 2 hours from the first report of a hijacking (8:15) to the last plane going down in Pennsylvania (10:10)(supposedly un-intercepted).

But - the first tower was hit at 8:46. The pentagon was hit at approximately 9:40 - just shy of an hour.

Keep in mind that standard protocols call for planes to be scrambled immediately upon word of a hijacking. So - even the 2nd tower of the WTC being hit at 9:02 represents a 45 minute gap.

Standard protocols were nor followed.

NORAD attempted to blame the FAA every step of the way - claiming they failed to make the proper notifications - despite conflicting testimony that video conferences were underway, etc etc etc.

5 years and counting with no explaination.

The Pentagon...

Was hit at 9:37am. The first tower was struck at 8:46am.

The first hijacking was reported between 8:13 and 8:20am.

If you go by the reporting of the first hijacking, then yes, there was almost a span of two hours before the Pentagon's airspace was breached, and then the Pentagon itself.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


...with all due respect, 9:37 minus 8:13 is 1 hour 24 minutes.

which is still a ridiculous amount of time.

I was rounding...


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Bush at the school

It's a very good question Jon. It depends what you mean by show; demonstrate...prove(?)

You can certainly indicate that it was an inside job.

One thing not in your list, if someone hasn't already mentioned it yet, is the behavior of Bush and his security team on the day at the school in Florida. This cannot really be explained at all by the official story and would tend to indicate something seriously wrong.

In fact I remember on the day glued to the TV as the rest of the world were, thinking when are they going to get Bush out of there ?

It seemed obvious to me Bush, the children, and Bush's team were in enormous danger and that a plane or a truck bomb or an armed gang of terrorists could have be heading to that school at any moment, so it tends to suggest they were pretty confident they weren't in any danger themselves, but how could they possibly know that unless they knew pretty much what was happening ?

Yes, Bush's behavior at the school was preposterous...

Yes, Bush's behavior at the school was preposterous & totally unbelievable! He was deliberately staying on the sidelines & pretending as if nothing important was happening. (It was an unbelievably poor job of acting, also.)

Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport


Emma E Booker Elementary Schl: 941-361-6480
2350 Dr Martin Luther King Way, Sarasota, FL 34234, US

Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport (SRQ): 941-359-5200
6000 Airport Cir, Sarasota, FL 34243, US

1: Start out going WEST on DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY / CR-683 toward NEWTOWN BLVD. 0.4 miles

2: Turn RIGHT onto WASHINGTON BLVD N / N WASHINGTON BLVD / US-301. 0.5 miles

3: Turn RIGHT onto MYRTLE ST. 0.1 miles

4: Turn LEFT onto N WASHINGTON BLVD / US-301 N. Continue to follow US-301 N. 1.5 miles

5: Turn LEFT onto UNIVERSITY PKWY. 1.4 miles

6: Turn RIGHT onto AIRPORT CIR. 0.1 miles

7: End at Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport (SRQ)
6000 Airport Cir, Sarasota, FL 34243, US

Total Est. Time: 8 minutes

Total Est. Distance: 4.11 miles

How did the Secret Service know on 9/11 that no "hijackers" were going to hijack a plane at the Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport, and crash it into Emma Booker Elementary School?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Please don't discount inexplicable Pentagon phenomena!

Something exploded at the Pentagon, and it sure wasn’t AA-77!

How could flunky Hani Hanjour have flown all the way from Ohio/Kentucky, and why/how could he have made those incredible acrobatics to hit the tiny, renovated section?

How did AA-77 fly all aound the Eastern U.S., after the towers were struck, without being intercepted or even observed/photographed by NORAD/Air Force?

Why won’t the gov’t release any clear video of what struck the Pentagon, more than 5 years later?

How did they obtain DNA (delicate organic material) for 63 or 64 passengers when the seats, luggage, and most all of the airplane were vaporized in a fireball @ 530 mph?

What were Cheney & the “young man” demonstrating in front of Minetta?

No Plane hit the Pentagon.

No Plane hit the Pentagon. Simple as is.
1), 4), 5) The rest has to be reworded.

Hangouts, Prior Knowledge and LIHOP-spins do not count.
Private Intel- and Military pre 9/11 contracts of NRO/NSA still ignored.
Anthrax -Fort Detrick connection, "Dark Winter" and much more...
Homeland Security was established before 9/11,
but it's a semi-hangout.
All pre-9/11 terror drills detailing 9/11, not any wargame distraction. Kerik's statement that "we drilled building collapses ...and plane crashes" ...

Mike Ruppert seems to agree with you....

....when he said (already 3 years ago):

"In 1993 and 1994, I had my last foray into the activist world where I sought to oppose government corruption by using physical evidence. (...) I don't for a minute believe that an airliner hit the Pentagon. And no one has ever seen a video of an airliner hitting the Pentagon because there isn't one. It doesn't look like the WTC towers collapsed because of the impacts and the way that they collapsed doesn't make sense. But if I, with some measure of journalistic credibility, and my readers on Capitol Hill and in universities start writing stories about these things, I wind up in either a journalistic suicide mission, or in the improbable place of having to explain where the airliner that didn't hit the Pentagon went or how the towers were brought down. There is a mountain of physical evidence that blows the government story in my mind, but my experience says that it will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way that will bring about change. What will penetrate, from my experience, is taking non-scientific reports that most people instantly accept as credible, whether news reports or government statements or documents, and merely showing that they are lies. That opens the wedge, and removes any reliance upon expert or scientific testimony which is typically used to confuse simple facts. From there, you can begin to show people all the other documentary evidence of foreknowledge, planning and participation."

(my emphasize)

Complete article is definitely worth a read!


I agree

And for agreeing i have been accused of 'blocking' controlled demolition.

for decades people have argued that the "Magic Bullet" proves that a 2nd gunman must have been involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Maybe. But - without proving WHO, HOW, WHY, etc etc - the magic bullet is meaningless.

Sure - CD is compelling. but - the evidence is now all gone and this debate could go on for DECADES with no resolution.

On the other hand - getting a whistleblower to turn state's evidence under subpoena is quite another thing.

Even better...

Than the "Magic Bullet", we have the Zapruda film that shows beyond the shadow of doubt that Kennedy was shot from the front.

However, as you said, without proving the WHO, HOW, WHY, etc etc - the Zapruda film is meaningless.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


And to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


yet you have members of this movement trying to supress Able Danger claiming it is a red herring and "limited hangout" etc etc.

but i wonder how they would claim to know this?

Lets get Lt Col Anthony Shaffer under oath - publically - and see what he remembers about that 2 star general who ordered him to ignore Atta.

Lets put Cheney under oath - along with EVERY person in the bunker - and see what those timelines really are.

Lets compel NORAD - under oath - to present air-tight testimony explaining THEIR timelines - and jail anyone who refuses to cooperate - or perjures himself.

Lets get the gag orders off Sibel and hear her complete story - including all the relevant documents and managers involved.

Lets get definitive facts regarding who placed put options on united and american airlines.

and the list goes on and on and on.

Controlled Demolition is compelling stuff. Fun for the youngsters. But - lets remember that we need PROOF of WHO, WHEN, WHY, HOW that will hold up in a court of law.

Didn't you know?

It wasn't "Al-Qaeda" that purchased those Put Options...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

everyone knows it was the

everyone knows it was the limo driver:)

Fetzer's "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"

Fetzer edited a great book called, "The Great Zapruder Hoax." Published in 2003, it's a collection of essays by 6 researchers and specialists with outstanding credentials.

I can't do it justice in a short blurb but I would consider it important reading for any serious 9/11 truth activist. I haven't finished reading it all, but so far, just reading parts, I am stunned. The Zapruder film was fabricated and so were probably all of the photographs of the event extant now, doctored. So much so, there is no real way to tell which, if any, depict the actual event . Without a doubt, the entire Zapruder film was fabricated.

It was apparently very important for the perps to have control of all documention. And along those lines, the FBI is even, up to a month ago, tracking private photographs of the events downtown.

What I've gotten from Fetzer's book so far is the extent to which government deception around the event extended. The cover-up was a lot of work. And one might infer that many people must've been involved.

I remember one of the objections to both 9/11 truth and Kennedy assasination research is: "Can't be true - too many people would have to be involved."

I guess lots of people were. It just must've been.

Though one can't say for certain how it was done, Tom Mattingly is correct in pointing out that the scientific evidence trumps hunchs and speculations, i.e. "That could never happen I know, because....too many people would have to be in on it."'

It did happen. And we just have to adjust to that.

The problem will always be doctoring of evidence. But that can also be often shown. At least in the past. With the Zapruder film it took almost 40 years.

The Zapruder was a psy-ops. Everyone assumes it wouldn't be fake since it was fought against and repressed by the government. And commonly, people assume that it is the only evidence we have that Kennedy was not killed by little Harvey Oswald.

Actually the case can only be made correctly with all the dots. All the data points are necessary to get an even half-way clear picture of what happened. When you exclude evidence you probably will weaken your case. All the dots, data points, fit together to make a picture. Call it "wholistic analysis."

"In matters of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person."
- Galileo Galilei

I heard Fetzer...

Got a lot of flack for this work in the JFK Movement. And... You're implying videos are fake in this thread...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Zapruder film was a hoax

I was just pointing out that I don't believe you or anyone else in this thread is correct when they say the Zapruder film proved Kennedy was hit from anywhere in particular, since the film was fabricated.

The implications for this thread are that no one piece or pieces of evidence should be emphasized or brought to the forefront for what we think are the political, practical or Propaganda value of that particular evidence or for the ease of demonstrating those particular facts to the public. All known evidence needs to be included, sifted, understood, honed and presented. None should be brought forward to the neglect of any other. The case should work together with mutually re-enforcing points. The data points should create a picture. If you excude data points you weaken your case, fade the big picture, and make it easier for the opposition to make you look like a incorrect crank.

Considering what we are up against "we" can't afford to exclude *any* evidence. The large picture itself has it own sense, which shouldn't be stifled. If you do then you will have the supporters of the government's postiion picking and nit-picking away with details, at that particular bit, strike after strike until we are left with nothing.

Haven't you heard the hopeful "debunkers" greatest complaint? "It's like trying to paddle gophers. You hit one down and another one will pop up somewhere else." Or "It takes some much energy and work to debunk them. They keep coming up with something new." :)

Why then limit ourselves?

The data tells a story. Granted that is incomplete since we don't have the power to reveal for ourselves all the details.

But the data *screams* a story. And our counter-narrative itself is what has the power. Our counter-narrative shouldn't become a variation of the government's myth. When you start emphasizing the "terrorists" and how they were ignored by the FBI and various officials, to the neglect of other information, I think you move nto an area where you find yourself promoting a variation on the government's narrative. Tweak it, and it becomes negligence. Since people are already primed to believe how "incompetent" Bush and his people are, it is easy to convince them of this. In fact the most common reflexive reaction of Leftists I have run into about 9/11 Truth is that "Oh but they are too incompetent. I would never believe they could never pull off something like that."

It is always easier to convince people of something that already plays into their preconceptions and prejudices - their frame. But our job, which is completely difficult, if not impossible, is not to convince them of what they already believe, but it is to adjust their frame. That takes lots more work.

I tried to point out that it took almost 40 years for the evidence about the Zapruder to come out. How much do you think the technology and skills of the Military-Industrial-Intelliegence complex have improved since then? And if you check out this book, you will see that the perps were right up to the minute with the technology of their time for that case.

It's therefore silly to think that they are not a few steps ahead of us. And therefore, we can't afford to exclude *any* evidence as to their culpability. *All* should be included.

So as regards to this contention is that yes, perhaps you can prove someone's culpability with one thread of evidence. (But perhaps not the entire culpability of the system right now in power. )

If I were to pick one I'd pick CD, but you excluded that.

If I were to pick from what is left, after excluding what you listed, I would say the cover-up job by the Commission. That's could work as a sort of a catch-all, because in that critique you could include everything that the Commission ignored.

In general I think we should, like a good prosecutor would, pile on evidence after evidence after evidence. And there surely is enough of that for us! Our spully isn't limited. As I think there was, too, in the Kennedy case. However, the American people somehow let that one slip by. :(

We can't afford to do that now.

"In matters of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person."
- Galileo Galilei

You state...

it as fact. The Zapruder film being fabricated. I don't agree. Go listen to Jesse Ventura. Not everything is a "Conspiracy."

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


I don't agree with putting EVERYTHING on the table. Especially not something that makes us look like we're insane. William Pepper talked about credibility. It is essential to have.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Who didn't...

Want to investigate 9/11, and what steps did they take to insure that it was never properly investigated?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


These questions speak literal VOLUMES...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Anthrax - Ft. Dietrick / WH - Cipro / Passage of Patriot Act

'nuff said

Not so fast...

Didn't you know that after 5 years of grueling research into the Anthrax attacks, they found that it wasn't a "Near-Military-Grade Biological Weapon" after all?


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Of course...

Even an idiot can surmise that it doesn't take 5 years to analyze a piece of evidence.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

The weaponization of the

The weaponization of the spores is one thing, but the strain of Anthrax is still from the US Military, that has not been disputed.

Not according to the "new"

Not according to the "new" news from the Washington Post. This is right from the article:

What was initially described as a near-military-grade biological weapon was ultimately found to have had a more ordinary pedigree, containing no additives and no signs of special processing to make the anthrax bacteria more deadly, law enforcement officials confirmed. In addition, the strain of anthrax used in the attacks has turned out to be more common than was initially believed, the officials said.

As a result, after a very public focus on government scientists as the likely source of the attacks, the FBI is today casting a far wider net, as investigators face the daunting prospect of an almost endless list of possible suspects in scores of countries around the globe

"There is no significant signature in the powder that points to a domestic source," said one scientist who has extensively studied the tan, talc-like material that paralyzed much of Washington in the deadliest bioterrorism attack in U.S. history.

Tough to keep up with the lastest version of the truth, no?

It could be...

Because of one of the widows of the Anthrax Attacks, Maureen Stevens.

Mrs. Stevens, "filed suit in December 2003, alleging security lapses at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases in Fort Detrick, Md., led to her husband's death."

"A federal judge refused to dismiss the case and it has been in front of a federal appeals court for nearly a year."

Mrs. Stevens said, "I want to go into court and find out what happened. What information's obviously there. The truth is there."

Her story only came out a few weeks ago.

Maybe now that the Anthrax wasn't weapons grade like it was originally claimed to be, this case can now drag on for as long as the Government likes.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

NORAD, Whistleblowers, Put options, Able danger, Forewarnings

and last but not least coverup

piece it all together and it smacks of inside job.

great thread idea Jon


The 7/10 meeting gives "Forewarnings" a WHOLE NEW meaning.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

After 9/11

The ILLEGAL removal and destruction of evidence from the WTC site.

Also...has anyone noticed what cheney said when he was asked what his FIRST thoughts were when told flight 93 had crashed? Without any other data to go on other than it crashed he said,

"We just witnessed an act of heroism."

The "Let's Roll" story was prepared in advance. Flight 93's target was Shanksville.