The Hijacking Of A Nation By Sibel Edmonds

Part 1: The Foreign Agent Factor


By Sibel Edmonds

In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America must be constantly awake against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence…since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of financial gain and positions of power.

Foreign governments and foreign-owned private interests have long sought to influence U.S. public policy. Several have accomplished this goal; those who are able and willing to pay what it takes. Those who buy themselves a few strategic middlemen, commonly known as pimps, while in DC circles referred to as foreign registered agents and lobbyists, who facilitate and bring about desired transactions. These successful foreign entities have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying influence in Washington DC. They have the required recipe down pat: get yourself a few ‘Dime a Dozen Generals,’ bid high in the ‘former statesmen lobby auction’, and put in your pocket one or two ‘ex-congressmen turned lobbyists’ who know the ropes when it comes to pocketing a few dozen who still serve.

The most important facet of this influence to consider is what happens when the active and powerful foreign entities’ objectives are in direct conflict with our nation’s objectives and its interests and security; and when this is the case, who pays the ultimate price and how. There is no need for assumptions of hypothetical situations to answer these questions, since throughout recent history we have repeatedly faced the dire consequences of the highjacking of our foreign and domestic policies by these so-called foreign agents of foreign influence.

Let’s illustrate this with the most important recent case, the catastrophe endured by our people; the September Eleven terrorist attacks. Let’s observe how certain foreign interests, combined with their U.S. agents and benefactors, overrode the interests and security of the entire nation; how thousands of victims and their loved ones were kicked aside to serve the interests of a few; foreign influence and its agents.

Senator Graham’s Revelation
It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship.

In his book, "Intelligence Matters," Senator Bob Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham’s statement from the July 24, 2003 congressional record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11: “The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured….The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.”

In his book Graham reveals, “Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.” He then cites another case, “We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

The most explosive revelation in Graham’s book is the following statement with regard to the administration’s attitude on page 216: “It was as if the President’s loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America’s safety.” Further, he states that he asked the FBI to undertake a review of the Riggs Bank records on the terrorists’ money trail, to look at other Saudi companies with ties to al-Qaeda, to plan for monitoring suspect Saudi interests in the United States; however, Graham adds: “To my knowledge, none of these investigations have been completed…Nor do we know anything else about what I believe to be a state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States.”

What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified.

In covering up Saudi Arabia’s direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission goes even a few steps further than the congress and the Executive Branch. The report claims "there is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." Their report ignores all the information provided by government officials to Congress, as well as volumes of published reports and investigations by other nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al Qaeda. It completely disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government's decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest security threat facing our nation and the world today?

Why is the United States willing to set aside its own security and interests in order to advance the interests of another state?

How can a government that’s been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to carry out many unjustifiable atrocities, prevent bringing to justice those who’ve been established as being directly responsible for it?

More importantly, how is this done in a nation that prides itself as one that operates under governance of the people, by the people, for the people?

How did our government bodies, those involved in drafting and implementing our nation’s policies, evolve into this foreign influence-peddling operation?

In order to answer these questions one must first establish who stands to lose and who stands to gain by protecting Saudi Arabia from being exposed and facing consequences of its involvement in terrorist networks activities. In addition to identifying the nations in question, we must identify the interests as well as the actors; their agents. Let’s look at Saudi Arabia as one of the successful foreign nations that have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying and peddling influence in Washington DC, and identify its hired ‘agents’ and ‘agents by default.’

Foreign Agents by Default
Although when it comes to our complex diplomatic threading with Saudi Arabia the easiest answer appears to be the ‘oil factor,’ upon further inspection the Saudi’s influence and role extends into other areas, such as the Military Industrial Complex and the too familiar Lobbying Games.

According to the report published by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Saudi Arabia is America’s top customer. Since 1990 the U.S. government, through the Pentagon’s arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department’s direct commercial sales program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer; a compulsive buyer of our weaponry. The list of U.S. sellers includes almost all the major players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

The report by FAS establishes that despite the show of U.S. support demonstrated by this astounding quantity of arms sales, Saudi Arabia’s human rights record is extremely poor; see the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report. Saudi Arabia’s position as a strategic Gulf ally has blinded U.S. officials into approving a level and quality of arms exports that should never have been allowed to a non-democratic country with such a poor human rights record.

Further, there are indications of Saudi’s active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. According to Mohammed Khilewi, first secretary at the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China, supported Pakistan's nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq's nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia’s case, considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country.

The Military Industrial Complex certainly seems to be a winner in having the congressional report pertaining to the Saudi government’s role in supporting the 9/11 terrorist activities being classified. The exposure would have meant grounds for U.S. sanctions and retributions; it would have risked the loss of billions of dollars in revenue from its ‘top customer.’ These companies don’t even have to officially register as foreign agents; after all, their strong loyalty and unbreakable bond with foreign elements exists by default; it is called mutual benefit. They are ‘Foreign Agents by Default.’

This holds true for other parties and players involved within the MIC network; the contractors and the investors. Let’s look at one of these famous and influential players; another foreign agent even if only by default; a man who defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims’ family members; a man who happens to be the senior counsel for the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the nation's 10th largest defense contractor with ties to the Saudi Royal Family, Enron, Global Crossing, among others; James Baker; Papa Bush’s Secretary of State. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Baker was reportedly at a Carlyle investor conference with members of the Bin Laden family in the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC, while Bush Sr. was on the payroll of the Carlyle group.

The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC based private equity firm that employs numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to both political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor between 1998 and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity investigation into Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report, overall, six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received nearly $14 billion in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering the fact that Saudi Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons industry, Carlyle’s investment and its stake, and of course Jimmy Baker’s far reaching influence within the Pentagon and congress, everything seems to come together and fit perfectly to shield this foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the American public.

The political action committees (PACs) of the biggest defense companies have given $14.2 million directly to federal candidates since Clinton's first presidential bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In 1997 alone the defense industry spent $49.5 million to lobby the nation's decision-makers.

Between 1998 and 2004, for the six-year period, Boeing Company spent more than $57 million in lobbying. For the same period of time, Lockheed Martin poured over $55 million into lobbying activities. Northrop Grumman exceeded both by investing $83 million in lobbying, and based on a report issued by POGO, it contributed over $4 million to individuals and PACs.

With ‘dime a dozen’ generals on their boards of directors, numerous high-powered ex congressmen and senators at their disposal in the ‘K Street Lobby Quarter,’ tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations, and billions of dollars at stake, the Military Industrial Complex surely had all the incentives to act just as foreign agents would, and fight for their highly valued client; the Saudi Government. They appear to have had all the reasons to ensure that the report would not see the light of the day; no matter what the effect on the country, its security, and its interests.

K Street Lobby Quarter
The fact that Saudi Arabia pours large sums into lobbying firms and public relations companies with close ties to congress does not come as a big surprise. The FARA database under the DOJ website lists Qorvis Communications as one of Saudi Arabia’s registered foreign agents. In 2003, for only a six months period, Qorvis received more than $11 million from the Saudi government. Another firm, Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal LLP, another registered foreign agent, received more than $840,000 for the same six-month period, and the list goes on. Just for this six month period the government of Saudi Arabia paid a total of more than $14 million to 13 lobbying and public relations companies; all registered as foreign agents.

Why do the Saudis spend nearly $20 million per year in lobbying activities in the U.S. via their hired agents? What kind of return on investment are they getting out of the United States Congress?

Let’s take Loeffler’s group and examine its value for the Saudi government, since it was paid over $3 million in three years between 2003 and 2005. The firm was founded by former Republican Congressman Tom Loeffler of Texas. Loeffler served in the Republican Leadership as Deputy Whip, and as Chief Deputy Whip during his third and fourth term. He was a member of the powerful Appropriations Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Budget Committee. In the two Bush campaigns for governor, Loeffler, who contributed $141,000, was the largest donor. In 1998, he served as national co-chair of the Republican National Committee's "Team 100" program for donors of $100,000 or more, and afterwards held the same title during George W. Bush's presidential campaign. Loeffler’s generosity extends to the members of congress as well. In 6 years, he has given more than $185,000 to members of congress, 97% of it going to only Republican members. During the same six-year period, Loeffler’s firm received more than $18 million in lobbying fees.

The firm’s managing director happens to be William L. Ball. Ball served as Chief of Staff to Senators John Tower (R-TX) and Herman Talmadge (D-GA). In 1985, he joined the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. Later he was assigned to the White House to serve President Reagan as his chief liaison to the Congress. Wallace Henderson is also a Partner; he was Chief Counsel and Chief of Staff to Representative W. J. Tauzin (R-LA), Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-LA).

By having foreign agents such as the Loeffler Group, in addition to their foreign agents by default, the MIC, the Saudis seem to have all their bases covered. Former secretaries and deputy secretaries with open access to the current ones, former congressmen and senators who used to be positioned on strategically valuable committees and know the rules of the congressional game, and millions of dollars available to be spent and channeled and re-channeled to various PACs go a long way toward ensuring results. Money counts. Money is needed to bring in votes. Professional skills and discretion are required to get this money to various final destinations. The registered foreign agents, the lobby groups, are geared for this task. The client is happy in the end; so are the foreign agents and the congressional actors.

Other Savvy Nations
Of course, the sanction and legitimization of far reaching foreign influence and strongholds in the U.S., despite the many dire consequences endured by its citizens, is not limited to the government of Saudi Arabia. Numerous well-documented cases can be cited for others such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Israel, to name a few.

I won’t get into the details and history of my own case, where the government invoked the state secrets privilege to gag my case and the congress in order to ‘protect certain sensitive diplomatic relations.’ The country, the foreign influence, in this case was the Republic of Turkey. The U.S. government did so despite the far reaching consequences of burying the facts involved, and disregarded the interests and security of the nation; all to protect a quasi ally engaged in numerous illegitimate activities within the global terrorist networks, nuclear black-market and narcotics activities; an ally who happens to be another compulsive and loyal buyer of the Military Industrial Complex; an ally who happens to be another savvy player in recruiting top U.S. players as its foreign agents and spending million of dollars per year to the lobbying groups headed by many ‘formers.’ Turkey’s agent list includes generals such as Joseph Ralston and Brent Scowcroft, former statesmen such as William Cohen and Marc Grossman, and of course famous ex-congressmen such as Bob Livingston and Stephen Solarz. Turkey too seems to have all its bases covered.

Another well-known and documented case involves Pakistan. Over two decades ago Richard Barlow, an intelligence analyst working for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney issued a startling report. After reviewing classified information from field agents, he had determined that Pakistan, despite official denials, had built a nuclear bomb. In the March 29, 1993 issue of New Yorker, Seymour Hersh noted that “even as Barlow began his digging, some senior State Department officials were worried that too much investigation would create what Barlow called embarrassment for Pakistan.” Barlow's conclusion was politically inconvenient. A finding that Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, and it would have killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad. A few months later a Pentagon official downplayed Pakistan's nuclear capabilities in his testimony to Congress. When Barlow protested to his superiors, he was fired. A few years later, the Executive Branch would slap Barlow with the State Secrets Privilege.

As we all now know, Pakistan provided direct nuclear assistance to Iran and Libya. During the Cold War, the U.S. put up with Pakistani lies and deception about their nuclear activities, it did not enforce its restrictions on Pakistan's nuclear program when it counted, and as a result Pakistan ended up with a U.S.-made nuclear weapons system. Yet again, after 9/11, the Bush administration issued a waiver ending the implementation of almost all sanctions on Pakistan because of the perceived need for Pakistani assistance in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who ironically were brought to power by direct U.S. support in the 1980s in the first place.

Weiss, in the May-June 2004 issue of the Bulletin states: “We are essentially back where we were with Pakistan in the 1980s. It is apparent that it has engaged in dangerous nuclear mischief with North Korea, Iran, and Libya (and perhaps others), but thus far without consequences to its relationship with the United States because of other, overriding foreign policy considerations--not the Cold War this time, but the war on terrorism.” He continues: “But now there is a major political difference. It was one thing for Pakistan, a country with which the United States has had good relations generally, to follow India and produce the bomb for itself. It is quite another for Pakistan to help two-thirds of the "axis of evil” to get the bomb as well.”

An agent of a ‘foreign principal’ is defined as any individual or organization which acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a foreign principal, or whose activities are directed by a foreign principal who engages in political activities, or acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal, or solicits or dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal, or represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government.

In 1938, in response to the large number of German propaganda agents in the pre-WWII U.S., Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was established to insure that the American public and its lawmakers know the source of propaganda intended to sway public opinion, policy, and laws. The Act requires every agent of a foreign principal to register with the Department of Justice and file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and expenditures on behalf of the foreign principal. Any agent testifying before a committee of Congress must furnish the committee with a copy of his most recent registration statement. The agent must keep records of all his activities and permit the Attorney General to inspect them. However, as is the case with many laws, the Act is filled with exemptions and loopholes that allow minimization of, and in some cases complete escape from, warranted scrutiny.

There are a number of exemptions. For example, persons whose activities are of a purely commercial nature or of a religious, academic, and charitable nature are exempt. Any agent who is engaged in lobbying activities and is registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) is exempt. The LDA of 1995 was passed after decades of effort to make the regulation and disclosure of lobbying the federal government more effective. However, LDA also has serious and important loopholes and limitations that can be summed up as: Inadequate Disclosure, Inadequate Enforcement, and Inadequate Regulation of Conduct. The recent congressional scandals make this point very clear.

In addition, neither act deals with an important issue: Conflict of Interest. Many of these agents, with their loyalty to the foreign hand that feeds them, end up being appointed to various positions, commissions and special envoys by our government. Recall Kissinger and his appointment to head the 9/11 Commission, and of course the recent revelation by Woodward on his advisory position to the current White House. Take a look at Jimmy Baker’s current appointment on the Iraq commission. Same goes for the father of all the ‘dime a dozen generals’, Brent Scowcroft, and one of his new protégés, General Joseph Ralston. In short, neither FARA nor LDA creates meaningful oversight, control, or enforcement; neither deals with conflict of interest issues, and neither provides any deterrence or consequences for unethical or illegal conduct.

It used to be congressional ‘pork projects’ and ‘corporate influence’ that raised eyebrows now and then; here and there. Gone are those days. Today the unrestricted and uncontrollable money game and influence peddling tricks within the major decision-making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government have reached new heights; yet, no raised eyebrows are registered. Sadly, today, a new version of ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ would have to be produced as a documentary.

The other day I received a request to sign on to a petition put forth by a group of 9/11 family members urging the congress to reopen the investigations of 9/11 and declassify the infamous 28-pages which deal with foreign governments, U.S. allies, that provided support for those who carried out the attacks on our nation. My heart goes out to them. I do sympathize with them. I am known to take on similar propositions and methods of activism myself. However, looking at the realities, seeing what it takes to get things done in Washington, realizing how this beast works in the Real Sin City, I would encourage them to look at the root cause, rather than the symptoms. There are only two ways I can see that can bring about what they have been fighting for and what the majority of us desire to see in terms of bringing about Truth, Oversight, and Accountability; Justice.

The family members, and their supporters, us, either have to tackle the major cause; the corruption of our government officials via unrestricted and undisciplined ‘revolving doors’ and ‘foreign influence & lobby’ practices, and push for expedient meaningful reforms by the new ambitious congress, and have them prove to us their worth. Or, they may as well give up their long-held integrity, go bid high for one or two former statesmen, hire a few dime a dozen generals, and buy themselves a couple of ex-congressmen turned lobbyists; that will do the job.

I'm looking forward to Edmonds being un-gag-ordered one day!

Great article!

It won't happen under the present state of affairs in DC, even w

It won't happen under the present state of affairs in DC, even with the Democrats in control of the House.

It'll have to wait until the

It'll have to wait until the next election when a Truth Caucus is in the running and actually get canidates into Office and press for truth. The public consensus will undeniably weigh in.

It'll have to wait until the

It'll have to wait until the next election when a Truth Caucus is in the running and actually get canidates into Office and press for truth. The public consensus will undeniably weigh in.

"Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

Sibel's knowledge of 9/11 doesn't revolve around how it took place. Yes, she knows about how "senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened", but her direct knowledge revolves around the financing of the attacks, and how that money is connected to some of our "Elected Officials."

"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."

Prior knowledge & money trail! That sounds like key evidence

to me!

"her [Edmonds' ] direct knowledge revolves around the financing of the attacks, and how that money is connected to some of our "Elected Officials."

It does...

To me to.

"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."


you didn't mention building 7!!!

Now now...

People are going to be mad at you. There is a difference though regarding this and Controlled Demolition.

Sibel Edmonds case is a fact, and not a theory. You can't "debunk" Sibel Edmonds (which is why you never see a "debunker" talk about her).

"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."


Sibel doesn't even mention the buildings. Everyone knows that the best way to expose 9/11 is to talk about the buildings. If she is not talking about the buildings she must be a shill!

Just what do you expect to gain by talking about a silly money trail directly tying the funding of 9/11 to members of our government? what would that prove?

what you need is a good solid approach speculating about possible theoretical hypothetical conjectural abstract notions revolving around planes and buildings.

why waste time discussing whistleblowers who may have evidence of direct complicity by our government? Who cares if Sibel has a copy of a cancelled check with George Bush's signature on it made payable to Osama Bin Laden? Building 7 must be mentioned in every interview!

Get your priorities STRAIGHT young man!

Who said this?

"Once you start to think of it like an international drug ring, it all starts to make sense."

"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."

Just a little satire

don't get all serious on me

I'm not...

But that's a quote from Sibel from a looooong time ago.

"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 is really interesting...

...when you think about the US restoring the poppy crop in Afghanistan since this cabal's invasion (now 92% of the world's supply after being nearly wiped out by the Taliban) and massive prior documentation of CIA involvement in the drug trade.....hmmmmmm....

.....wonder how close that analogy really is, given what she knows and can't talk about.....

I've always thought bringing back the opium crop and the resulting off-the-books money laundering was one of the under-examined motives for 9/11. Just one of many motives, to be sure, but not to be largely ignored, since Ruppert talked about it in CTR, like it has been.

The War of Drugs (where has that gone?) is among the biggest hypocrisies of America's government (and that takes in some territory).


That you used the abbreviation "CTR."

A "CTR" (not Crossing The Rubicon) is a Currency Transaction Report, and was created specifically for fighting Money Laundering.

If you try to deposit more than $10,000 in cash into any bank, you have to fill one out.

The organizations that do not have to fill one out are:

Companies that trade on the stock exchange (Pepsi, Ford, IBM, etc...)


Government agencies (FBI, CIA, etc...)

"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."

Whew. Nice to see a little

Whew. Nice to see a little humor in there. The tension was getting pretty thick, what with that beam weapon shit and everything.

They arrested Capone on Tax

They arrested Capone on Tax charges, took a thug off the street, locked him up. Nailing Bush for crosswalking will do at the moment. Besides, Sibel Edmunds is simply one more file in the case against this Administration.

Wow. Do you ever get sick of

Wow. Do you ever get sick of that tired act? You never fail to make narrow, disrespectful, short-sighted and oh so typical of you and Jon remarks about CD do you?

apparently not

but - your remark illustrates perfectly that you cannot distinguish the difference between criticizing CD as a theory - and criticizing the approach of injecting CD into every discussion.

Example - scroll down and you will see that Real Truther has posted a comment about how Sibel would explain Building 7.

The subject of Sibel has NOTHING to do with CD - and I feel that some activists persist in attempting to make physical evidence the CENTER of every discussion.

i use satire to make this point.

You made your point ad

You made your point ad naseum and its kind of childish how you use "satire" on almost every thread you pop up on to disparege the CD theory. Its not even funny and its getting old. Really. I would assume Real Truther, whos comment showed up after yours, was responding to your "satire" with his comment about WTC7.

Thanks anonymous, that's exactly what I was doing

John Albanese likes to talk about "the movement" working together bla bla bla, but of course that only applies to people who see things his way.

Curiously very much like a shill, he constantly does things that he accuses other people of doing (isn't there a word for that?) People will be having a perfectly valid and interesting discussion on some aspect of the collapses, and because no one wants to talk about proof of hijackers (funding) with John he'll pop in on the discussion just to tell everyone that they are wasting their time, hurting the movement, bla bla bla.

John's film, Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, isn't exactly popular in the movement - 140,000 views in 7 months versus 780,000 views in 2 months for 9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions. Are you starting to see why John doesn't like CD theories?

While I'm sure John is a person who is genuinely inetrested in getting the truth about 9/11 out, his actions are more consistent with someone who doesn't want people to talk about controlled demolition of the towers for some reason. His explanation is that it isn't good for the movement. The number of views of 9/11 Mysteries would seem to put the lie to that. No, no, you don't understand, says John. Fox News seizes on CD arguments to discredit us. John, does it ever occur to you that the reaon they try to discredit CD is because a) it is right and b) it is popular?

See, if we all listened to John we would be telling everyone that Pakistan paid the al Qaeda hijackers who pulled off 9/11. This will then be broadcast on every major network's newscast (they haven't yet because no one listens to John and no one has told them about it).

By now it should be abundantly clear to most people, and if not I'll repeat it--that the Pakistan money angle is one half of the last ditch effort to stop 9/11 truth. That effort is two-fold. On the one hand, get some shills in on the ground floor with the really convincing stuff--CD, building 7, the Pentagon. That seems to have been Fetzer playing the impartial guy who then decides that Wood and Reynolds, not so much his buddy Steve Jones, deserve the attention. Bang--physical evidence discredited by association with career conspiracy theorist Fetzer and the road runner cartoon people (including the Charles Manson lookalike Nico Haupt.)

But wait--what if the movement then just splinters into serious physical evidence people and the obviously fake people?? No, they have that covered too. The debate will be framed as proponents of physical evidence (Judy Jetson, Reynolds Wrap, and Uncle Fetzer) against circumstancial evidence people (the "great" Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Mike Ruppert) and whoever remains who actually wants to join the freakshow has two choices--the circus freaks and the "serious" researchers into werid sounding stuff that ultimately just supports the official version.

Brilliant plan, except for one teeny tiny detail. No one's buying it. As we can see from the figures for John's no CD limited hangout flick versus 9/11 Mysteries DEMOLITIONS, the people, the masses, our intended audience, has made its choice. They can handle basic science--they know BS when they see it.

So after No Planes flopped to the point where this site had to block it or risk being accused of abetting obvious nonsense, we then got space beams! Notice no one is trying to come up with bogus theories about Pakistan to muddy those waters? Where is the "Giant Lizards posing as Pakistanis wired the money to Atta, who is a reptillian shape shifter, to aid the hijackings" theory? Could it be that CD is targeted with BS theories that seem related, while the limited hangout LIHOP stuff is free to pass itself off as serious?

Thankfully, shill tactics get easier and easier to spot once theyve been at it for long enough. Never EVER take the path of least resistance--it is ALWAYS trouble. It is always a trap for the lazy and/or unaware. Anyway, kep on truthin' everyone!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



"Notice no one is trying to come up with bogus theories about Pakistan to muddy those waters?"

"the Pakistan money angle is one half of the last ditch effort to stop 9/11 truth"

"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 get what he said and i

i get what he said and i agree, the Pakistan aspect is a last ditch effort. we simply havent gotten there yet. the 9/11 movement, while waking many people up has not reached critical mass yet to the point where it cant be easily ignored/mocked in the MSM. we are on our way for sure but not there yet. and anyway, the theories about Pakistan are not bogus but that doesnt mean they wont be a part of the last ditch effort. if Pakistan goes down, whos gonna cry? Israel? Saudi Arabia? America? doubtful.

I'm not...

Having this discussion about whether or not Pakistan was set up to take the fall again.

You can't take away years of people trying to get answers about Pakistan's involvement, only to be turned away, and then suddenly say, "Hey, Pakistan was involved."

I'm not suggesting from this that Pakistan is the quote unquote "solution" to 9/11 because it's not. Pakistan is one part in a very complicated story. The question to me is who else was involved with Al-Qaeda? Was Al-Qaeda used as a tool just as in the 1980's the Mujahadeen were basically used by the U.S. Government? - Paul Thompson - 9/11: Press For Truth

"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've never rejected anyone's efforts to pin down

Pakistan's involvement, but I do think that part of the evil plan might have been setting up Pakistan to function as a fall guy if need be. I don't see the contradiction here.

Watch this clip...

At 1hr and 50 minutes...

Click Here

Does Lee Hamilton acknowledge Pakistan's involvement in any way, shape, or form? Does it look as if he's "setting up Pakistan to function as a fall guy if need be?"

No. He tries to avoid the questioning completely.

If they come out and say, "Hey, Pakistan was the real culprit behind 9/11", what will be their excuse for ignoring it for so long? That the United States intelligence apparatus isn't nearly as slick as Kyle Hence?

If Pakistan's involvement is exposed, so will the U.S.'s involvement.

"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."

Well obviously

that's what I think, and that's what you think, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if "they" think they could spin it. After all, they blew up two enormous buildings (I'm distinguishing between blowing up an cd'ing here) and made most of America not only believe they fell down but defend that belief like it was part of their religion.

no, thats why its called a

no, thats why its called a last ditch. Pakistan will take the fall when the tidal wave is too much to take. they still have a few cards left to play no doubt.

You're right...

Let's focus on the theory of Controlled Demolition, and the theory of an A-3 Sky Warrior or a missile hitting the Pentagon. That's way more incriminating, and a lot easier to prove.

I'm done.

"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."

lets focus on ALL evidence.

lets focus on ALL evidence. your typical.

Word. There's no reason to

Word. There's no reason to exclude the truth in any form. Every individual listener is unique in what they know and what will help him/her understand.

and there I was

About to say that at least ONE of the Jon's knew how to discuss the issues on their merits, until I saw the crack about how old bla bla bla. Hmmm, let's see--seemingly older than the horndogs who couldn't help but comment on how sexy that girl truther holding a sign was, instead of keeping comments on the subject? But I digress.

Here's what the Pakistan ruse is all about. It's basic limited hangout, which means that they throw out a few teasers into the general mix of incriminating circumstances. They of course don't talk about it, so as to make it part of the "conspiracy theories". When the time comes that people start asking too many questions, they say oh well, um, yeah, uh Pakistan, well, yeah maybe someone might have known that they were helping al Qaeda. But in fact, it was a ROGUE operative in the ISI, and good ol Bob Graham was meeting with the ISI chief to talk about all the recent threats and indications of an imminent attack. Little did we know his own operatives were betraying us (him?) and funding the terrists!! I think that's more likely than--oh my GOD! Paksitan paid Ata! That means Bush KNEW!! Um, nope.

By revealing it in the way I describe, they will get truthers all excited (egged on by those who have been peddling the Pakistan angle) until they return their verdict--well, we can add Pakistan to the axis of evil, but Bush had no foreknowledge. [Israel cheers, India cheers] And now, since we've "PROVED" al Qaeda, with Pakistan's help, was responsible, we'll tolerate no more of your absurd controlled demolition theories!

Makes sense to me.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


You disparage evidence that

You disparage evidence that can be verified and insist that we focus on evidence that is apparently impossible to verify. Nice.


That is a strong word. You may be able to elicit some damning testimony. Whether that testimony would be seen as credible by a future prosecutor or jury, and whether that evidence might be spun out in ways not anticipated, cannot be verified. I speak from experience. Witnesses can go south on you at trial. In a case like this, there would be no end to the surprises.

This could probably be done with physical evidence as well, but options are more limited. It's pretty hard to explain why the American people were not told what really happened, and why the scientific establishment and media were silent.

It do not agree that it is impossible to verify that vast energy beyond gravity was added to disintegrate those buildings.

India will cry! India will cry!

Hey, did you all know that in addition to the Times of India revealing the ISI wire transfer, Indian intelligence corroborated the hijackers' IDs for the FBI? i.e. their membership in al Qaeda?

nope, no setup there!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Simple question...

How old are you?

"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."

You're being a jerk.

You're being a jerk.

that was me, my computers

that was me, my computers all virused up and keeps deleting my name. goddamn cookies. http://f

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

thanks man, i tried the

thanks man, i tried the ewido before, it worked pretty good before the free trial ran out.

the new version is owned by AVG now

and the scanner/update always works, just the real time protection won't work...

make sure you run it in safe mode.

run this little program too:

select all , then click start cleaning

in Safe Mode though

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

and don't use MS

and don't use MS Explorer...  Use firefox, or opera...

 and if you want to get down and dirty, grab a copy of AVZ from

detects those little nasties which are designed to fly below the traditional Antivirus radar... detects : spyware, adware, network worms, trojans (spy, and downloaders), dialers, keyloggers and rootkits.


....or don't use MS.... Use

....or don't use MS.... Use Linux, or OpenSolaris, or BSD....

BSD, hehe funny  :D

BSD, hehe funny  :D

I don't think they're shills.

I think they're approaching the issue from a different perspective, on a path that has a huge pitfall in it. Sometimes they themselves get caught in the pitfall, but maybe more importantly, the pitfall is a real hazard for people they're trying to convince.

The Pakistani/Saudi argument should function like a boomerang, pointing our attention right back at interests within the United States. PFT suggests this cinematically (and not too subtly, even) when the dialogue is about how Pakistan is just one part of the problem and the visual is a lingering shot of the White House. The pitfall, obviously, is when attention gets hung up out at that far end, with al Qaeda, dissident Saudi royalty, and on and on. They may have benefitted from 9/11, they may have had motivations to try and commit a terrorist act, but the bottom line is that they couldn't make NORAD stand down and I don't think they could "pull" Building 7. They might not even have known it, but they were somebody's tools.

If discussion of the patsy angle doesn't acknowledge their patsitude, that's when it gets derailed. But I think there's a lot of value in examining the (miscontrued as) LIHOP angle, because while some people, even in our own government, were LIHOP, they were facilitating the domestic interests that were MIHOP. (Those should read as lettING and makING)

"They may have benefitted

"They may have benefitted from 9/11, they may have had motivations to try and commit a terrorist act, but the bottom line is that they couldn't make NORAD stand down and I don't think they could 'pull' Building 7."

Spot on.

It is a fact that building 7 came down evenly and without *any* structural resistance; it is a fact that the physical evidence was destroyed by May 2002; it is a fact that NIST just can't come up with a plausible explanation.

Note that I'm not saying that one should only talk about CD, or talk about it at every opportunity.

Show "You obviously..." by John Albanese

Smarm gets you nowhere John

You're really beginning to strike me as a rather unpleasant person. have you even seen my website? Does it look like I only talk about CD? But whatever, you want to bait me into arguing about this because you think cracking a few jokes is going to gain you sympathy. You bet I'm upset. I've been upset for a long time about these lies. And now I see you being a hypocrite, being obnoxious, and worst of all, being totally wrong. Thankfully you don't make a very good case--you really just serve to annoy. But whatever, carry on, and good luck framing Pakistan, you'll ned it!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Show "grow up" by John Albanese

the zionist landlord?

you think posting crap like this is good for the movement?

"You obviously put a lot of

"You obviously put a lot of time into this response. You must be upset.", said a smirking John Albanese, fully satisfied that his "satire" worked so well for its intended purpose. Smirk one more, John: you upset *me* too.

One good thing came out of this discussion, though. I learned from it that John made 911 video as well. Will search for it, download it, watch it and make up my mind about it merely on its merits. Will also test it with my friends and colleagues, and see if it "works" better than "911 Mysteries:...."

Thanks for the info about this video.

John Albanese -- into *this* thread *you* introduced "CD"

"(...) you cannot distinguish the difference between criticizing CD as a theory - and criticizing the approach of injecting CD into every discussion."
I'm afraid, John Albanese -- into *this* thread it was your person that mentioned controlled demolition for the first time. You're hitting a sleeping strawman, and now this strawman awakes....

"I feel that some activists persist in attempting to make physical evidence the CENTER of every discussion."
Look, everybody acts from his own experience, and from his own mindset. A *lot* of people do think that the most powerful arguments and the fastest way to convert their relatives, friends, colleagues and foreigners to 911 truth is if they point them to the same evidence that made themselves go "WTF?!?!!" for the first time. And it is a simple fact of life that a *lot* of people were turned into "doubters" and "disbelievers" when they encountered WTC7 falldown video footage for the first time. Like myself...

Now, I myself do *NOT* put WTC7's controlled demolition put into the center of any 911 discussion (I did initially too, because it is just so outrageous and obvious). But, honestly, John Albanese: I experience your permanent, obnoxious way -- satire or not! -- to bring up this same issue again and again and again and again and again and again very much as a counter-productive behavior. (It even starts to mirror the "no planers" pattern of behavior). First, you won't convince those people who wholeheartedly believe in the WTC7/CD approach with your short "funny" (*NOT!*) comments. Second: who are you that you could start to prescribe to other people how they should discuss? Who are you that you want to deny free speech to people who do not agree with your own tactical considerations?

A suggestion for good to you, John Albanese: take your talents, your writing skills, your brain brilliance, your background in strategizing, your knowledge in "The Art of War" and write an essay (working title: "What I think is the best set of arguments to put forward in 911 truth discussions"). Refrain from bad satire. Make your arguments in a positive way.

That will help us all.



What about asking this question in the next 911blogger poll?

"Which was the single most important argument and/or evidence that made you questioning the government's 9/11 story for the first time?" And then offer as options to tick: "watching WTC7 falldown video footage", "watching 'Loose Change'", "discussions around the missing plane in the pentagon", "TV footage about WTC1/2 collapses", "reports about firemen hearing series of explosions", "bush's weird behavior in the classroom", plus 10 or 15 more alternatives....

That should give us a better idea, and some facts to base our judgements on, rather than just using our personal taste...

i appreciate your comments

although - i do think this entire discussion got out of hand - and yes i did bait people with my 'satire' - i think it is an exaggeration to claim that this is all i ever talk about. on the contrary - i have made a concerted effort to introduce new topics to this board - only to have myself beaten down by people who use my record with CD as a WEAPON against me.

they claim that my comments and research are not valid since i do not fully support CD. I am called a government shill. my film is attacked as LIHOP or Limited Hangout. and on and on and on.

I have seen the great work of Kyle Hence who produced the excellent Press for the Truth film attacked because - boo hoo - his film does not make CD its centerpiece argument. his film also was called LIHOP and Limited Hangout - implying he too is a government shill.

I have seen the fine work of Jon Gold - and the very important research he presents - attacked, distorted, called "limited hangout" etc etc. why? because he dares question the wisdom of making CD the centerpiece of this movement.

if you look at the chronology on this board i was merely joking with jon gold. we both have had heated discussions with people here who seem to want to belittle Jon's Pakistan research and my film for NOT being about CD.

so - i was really just joking with Jon.

predictably i was soon being called "a shill" and many other personal insults started flying.

so - you can question my judgement in making these jokes. but - i think it only serves to validate my point that anyone who dares to question the wisdom of CD as an activist tool - or who even jokes about the subject - will be accused of being a spy or a shill.

now THAT reminds me of the no-planers. attacking fellow activists and calling them government shills? where's your indignation over that?

some of us in the movement do indeed feel that there is almost a 'fundamentalist' approach that implies that everyone MUST agree with the CD people's approach - or be the target of accusations and insults.

I think this thread proves that point.

your solutions seems to imply that i refrain from participating - or refrain from expressing my opinions.

well - that's not a solution. no one should feel intimidated into being silenced. i personally think that, although many people were convinced over the video of Building 7 - many others see the entire subject as somewhat absurdist. these people must be offered OTHER reasons to question the official story of 9/11. we can't ostracize new members simply because they do not "get" CD.

I'm pretty disappointed by

I'm pretty disappointed by your response, because it doesn't at all directly address any of the issues I raised. What's your take about my proposed poll questions, for example? What about my wish that you elaborate your "non CD" pro-911 truth ideas in a well thought-out essay of your own? It could add an interesting facette to the complex overall picture of all the forces that were involved in the 9/11 crime case. (And be assured, I would be a very keen reader of this. I do not need more convincing about CD, because I am convinced already....)

"i do think this entire discussion got out of hand - and yes i did bait people with my 'satire'"
Will you learn from this? (Satire, sarcasm, jokes do not transfer well and "as intended" over "modern" internet links that are restricted to ASCII text. I know that *very* well, being a savvy internet user since 12 years [while being pretty new to 9/11-related forums, though]. Even worse is the effect if you start making "insider jokes" in a non-insider circle. And a public forum/website/comment-section *IS* such a non-insider circle.)

"' i think it is an exaggeration to claim (...) i have made a concerted effort to introduce new topics to this board (...) they claim that my comments and research are not valid (...) I am called a government shill. (...)."
Please do not try to give me your whole story in a nutshell. It is out of context. Your private "satire" was not working. The majority didn't understand it. It backfired. Your continued the spin ad nauseum. You annoyed lots of people. Including myself. Please learn to avoid things like that if you do not want to be seen as disruptive. (You may think I'm not entitled to such a statement, being a new visitor to this website, and you may be right. But I am a 53 year old veteran of lots of internet debates, heated verbal fights and flamewars -- so I can identify unhealthy patterns in performing discourses even if I am new to a topic. And I speak my mind, like it or not.)

"i was really just joking with Jon."
No. it was not "just with Jon". You joked in a public forum. Your joke was out of context. You had lots of witnesses for a "private" joke. And hence, it didn't work. "Insider jokes" never work if the majority of witnesses are outsiders. And now you wonder? And now you feel your treatment is unjust?

"predictably i was soon being called "a shill" and many other personal insults started flying."
I made the effort and parsed and grepped through the complete page here. The very first occurence of the string "shill" appeared in a posting signed "Submitted by John Albanese on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 6:34pm.". So just like the "controlled demolition" idea, it was again yourself who introduced that word into this thread, willingly or not. Here's a complete list (without looking into the context of the actual use of that word -- do that yourself, if you like):

* Submitted by Real Truther on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 8:44pm.
* Submitted by casseia on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 9:15pm.
* Submitted by John Albanese on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 9:31pm
* Submitted by John Albanese on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 9:41pm
* Submitted by Real Truther on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 10:13pm
* Submitted by John Albanese on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 10:37pm.
* Submitted by Real Truther on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 10:54pm.
* Submitted by John Albanese on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 11:41pm
* Submitted by Real Truther on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 11:59pm.
* Submitted by John Albanese on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 12:33am.
* Submitted by jfal on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 12:52am.
* Submitted by John Albanese on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 1:04am.

I can see "Real Truther" indeed did insinuate that he may think you are a "shill" (but also said "I'm not calling you a shill"), and I think "Real Truther" should apologize for that statement. He was so convincing with the rest of his arguments, and won it by leaps and bounds -- and this single ad hominem attack does spoil it all again.

"now THAT reminds me of the no-planers. attacking fellow activists and calling them government shills? where's your indignation over that?"
I didn't see this (yet?). I didn't see a "no-planer" here. Not in this thread. Do you try to spin on previous infights you were having elsewhere into this thread??? Sorry, I have to turn by back on this then.

Look, I'm relatively new to this site. A colleague of mine was discussing 9/11 with me since about 4 months, showing me videos about WTC7 and other stuff. He has a 911blogger account and seems to be using it from work. I used to be a pacifiist, an anti-Iraq & anti-Libanon wars semi-activist. Since about 2 months I am myself spreading the 9/11 truth snippets into my own personal circles. I've been reading this site since only 8 days or so (mostly the stuff posted by Jon Gold and 911timeliner).

Don't expect me to be indignated by something you tell me, but what I can't see.

I give my comments purely on what I see happening in *THIS* thread. And your mark is an "F", so far.

"some of us in the movement do indeed feel that there is almost a 'fundamentalist' approach that implies that everyone MUST agree with the CD people's approach - or be the target of accusations and insults."
I said it before: you was hitting a sleeping strawman until it awoke.

The picture of yourself that you show me is one of a person that wants to ridicule with his satire anybody who puts controlled demolition into the center of his personal truth work. Why?

Why can't you just let people argue with what arguments they can argue best?

Why don't you write and post an essay that lays down your thoughts, your strategy, your ideas about the best way forward? Why disrupt a thread with off-topic, incomprehensible, insider "satire"?

"your solutions seems to imply that i refrain from participating - or refrain from expressing my opinions."
No, where did I say so? Read again. Please put your ideas forward -- but without insider "satire" that ridicules serious, hard-working people with different ideas. Don't hi-jack other threads with your (hardly understood) sarcasm. Create your own thread with your own blog. (And admit a mistake if you made one, instead of dodging the issue.)

" no one should feel intimidated into being silenced."
Right. So please don't *YOU* (unwittingly) try to intimidate other people into shutting up about WTC7/CD. I *still* like WTC7/CD evidence, because it helped me to start looking through the government smokescreens....

"people must be offered OTHER reasons to question the official story of 9/11."
Yes, by all means. But this can easily happen without dismissing ONE reason all the time, no?

"we can't ostracize new members simply because they do not "get" CD."
I personally haven't met *anyone* new to 9/11 truth who was ostracized by not "getting" the WTC7 evidence for controlled demolition. Not one. Not a single one. (I have introduced to 9/11 truth about..... 14 people, I just went through the names, that I know personally, and about another dozen, who happened to be witnesses in discussions I had with these, but whom I didn't know. I guess-timate my success rate to be about 93% for those 14, and $UNKNOWN for the rest. The one person [=7%] whom I haven't convinced yet -- my youngest brother -- "gets" controlled demolition, but now thinks it were "the Arab terrorrists" who instigated CD of WTC1+2+7....).

And we can't miss the winning over of people who *CAN* be won with controlled demolition evidence.

This response is ill

I get what Albanese is saying, and you are being ridiculous.

Who died and made YOU the board Nazi? Albanese introduced the word "Shill" here? What a joke.

Do you know "Godwin's Law"?

My response is ill? Even though I said in it that I compiled the list"without looking into the context of the actual use of that word" and, further, this:: "I can see 'Real Truther' indeed did insinuate that he may think you are a 'shill' (but also said "I'm not calling you a shill"), and I think "Real Truther" should apologize for that statement." ?

Did you even notice this sentence? And that's why you can jump up and call me ridiculous? And why you start calling me names? It's probably a good reason to hide inside the group of people who post as "Anonymous"....

I suggest you make yourself familiar with "Godwin's Law" (from 1990) first, and then pick a unique username to post with....

"Getting meta" -- attention JonGold-Fan

Well, you certainly picked quite a thread for your first posting foray on this board! I for one appreciate your contributions so far and hope you'll stick around.

"Getting meta" is how another poster on another thread referred to our sometimes-practice of having dialogue about our dialogue. I think "meta-dialogue" is a valuable addition to threads here, although it often makes people uncomfortable. The best case scenario is that people get a new perspective on the ways they interact on the board about which they might be unconscious, and everyone is still friends (or congenial colleagues) afterwards. Your efforts in this area -- and your experience in this area from your participation on other boards -- is something I welcome.

John Albanese, if you come across this post and it pisses you off, please don't stay pissed. This thread had me really bent out of shape yesterday because several posters whom I particularly respect, including you, were really going for each others' throats. I realize that happens from time to time, but this post is not an attempt to keep that going! I hope you've noticed from my posts along the way that EGLS is one of my favorite 9/11 films, that I pimp it constantly in real life to people who have only seen "Loose Change" (or now, "911 Mysteries") and that I helped the guys at the French 9/11 site subtitle it. You can count me as one of the people who is most eagerly anticipating the revised version that you have mentioned.

For your background information, JonGold-Fan, John Albanese is one of the more consistently interesting posters here -- as he had the misfortune of being an eyewitness to the WTC attacks along with his wife, and has written about the experience many times. He is also personally and unfairly attacked on a regular basis by a particular clique here, which I mention merely as a context for you to put any future constructive criticism in.

keep in mind that, yet

keep in mind that, yet again, Albanese started this shit storm by dispareging anyone who utters the CD theory. this is a constant trend, he and his little friend take their little shots and expect people not to take issue with it. hes not as innocent as you portray him to be. just check the time stamps.

Thanks, casseia, for filling

Thanks, casseia,

for filling me in with that background info. I am grateful for this. Still, I did not have much time to browse around other threads on this site in the last 4 days -- I was too much entangled with reading up all the wealth of material that I find on and through "The Complete 911 Timeline". My own remarks here were purely based on what people had said in this threat alone....

Though I found and downloaded John Albanese's movie "Everybody's got to learn..." I've not yet watched it. I'll view it sometime soon, and hopefully I will be able to make my judgement about it purely on its own merits.

So long.

A slightly different poll

A slightly different poll might be on what argument(s) turned a strong believer in the official story -- one who may have actively opposed and argued against "conspiracy theories" -- into a disbeliever. Such a poll would be more about radical *conversion*. (When I, for example, learned about 9/11 Truth, I had not really thought much about the whole thing, let alone defended the OT.)

I'm thinking of debates on web forums etc., in which the most vocal defenders of the official theory never seem to change their position, no matter what argument is presented to them. However, insofar as some such people sometimes jump to the "other side", it would be interesting to know how they were converted.

You still don't understand the difference...

Between fact and theory. The only way Sibel Edmonds will be unable to be "debunked" is if she has US government documentary evidence, or can provide those with subpoena power with the appropriate information to get their hands on US government documentary evidence, that supports what she says. Otherwise, it's her word against many other government officials that will testify that she is lying.

Yes, that Sibel Edmonds exists is a FACT. Yes, that she says she has inside information that will help our cause is a FACT. However, at this point it is still your THEORY (as I haven't seen any US government documentary evidence to back her story up) that she's telling the truth.

You never see a debunker talk about her for two reasons. First, all they have to do is say she must be lying disgruntled former government employee and people who buy the 9/11 myth will believe it. That's pretty simple. Second, if you're talking about the mainstream media debunkers, they don't talk about her because their audience has never heard of her. I've pointed this out in past posts, but everyone in the MSM audience has heard of the twin towers and the pentagon, that's why they focus on those aspects. The MSM doesn't have to lay out the whole backstory for the audience. If they even addressed Sibel, they would lay out the back story and call her a liar and a disgruntled former employee. That simple.

I'm sure you wil ignore this diclaimer, but let me say that I think she is telling the truth. I'm simply pointing out (again) that she is not the panacea of 9/11 Truth you think she is at this point. If she can produce documentary evidence to back up what she says, I would certainly revisit the issue.

money trail

Off Topic 9/11 related. When conservatives notice 9/11.

When the government told me that the laws of physics had been temporarily suspended so that the three WTC buildings could collapse into their own footprint all on the same day, I noticed. When the spin doctors went into overdrive to explain how such a thing was possible, conveniently leaving out all the information that clearly showed it was not, I noticed. When all the steel from the crime scene was removed so it could not be inspected, I noticed.


that was a pretty good post. I am surprised that only a couple right wing kool aid drinking hacks crawled out of the woodwork to attack it!

I never had a full grasp on

I never had a full grasp on the Sibel Edmonds arguement until I read Synthetic Terror. She was put in a situation which others would likely capitulate. She is a patriot. I wonder if I would be as strong as she was/is had I been in the same situation.

Sibel Has Inferred Hastert...

Sibel Edmonds, in a previous writing, inferred that Denny Hastert very well might be one of the politicians with prior knowledge of 9/11.

Wow, a ton of very important

Wow, a ton of very important information to digest. Great article.


My initial response to that article is simply, "we’re completely fucked." Our only hope, then, is to keep fighting to blow the lid off of 9/11 so that we can unravel the system of murderous traitors and theives in and around our government.

As long as the Military Industrial Complex is allowed to operate “for profit” there will never be an end to phony wars and false-flag terrorism.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower


Damn it Ike!

Why couldn't you be more clear in your warning?*sarcasm*

"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."

Very good article, but...

It's funny that she cites Bob Graham at length to point in the Saudi direction. I want to know why the f Bob Graham met with Pakistani General Ahmad on 9/11.

Is it possible for someone...

....under a "state-secrets" gag order to run for President?

Just wondering.

I don't think Edmonds was

I don't think Edmonds was born in America, if that's what you are thinking.

Yeah, I knew that...

....she couldn't run because of that.....just kind of calling attention to the gap between her vital message/information and the manipulative drivel we get from the elite's hand-picked candidates who perpetuate the existing corrupt system.


was not born in the USA so would never be able to run anyway.

One thing that has always made me extremely curious about the Sibel case is her apparent hints that she is sitting on incriminating evidence tying this government to all sorts of nuclear black market deals and the drug trade, etc etc.

i guess my only question is how she knows all this. yes - as a translator she may have seen documents showing that the government had evidence that al qaeda was planning attacks. that i can accept.

but - it now seems like her story is expanding to include all this other stuff - and i'm just wondering how a lowly translator for the FBI would have all of this inside sensitive information about the darkest elements of our government?

i am not saying i don't believe her. i just find it a curious aspect to this story.

Since all this has happened to her...

....she has formed an organization for other whistleblowers.....certainly she has since learned a great dea from theml about how the system functions...I didn't see anything in her expose that showed other inside information...but I'll re-read it..

Good points

It would be a strategic error to count on her as our saviour, even should she be ungagged.

And how can she be so completely gagged? If I were her and I believed that what I knew would save the US from tyranny, I'd spill my guts, and go into hiding outside the US.

I have no reason to slam her, but will only say that I find aspects of her situation puzzling.

"lowly translator"????

Your arrogance is without parallel, John.

*Good* translators, especially the type that picks up multiple languages very quickly, do have much more in their brains than just the ability to map turkish words to english ones, and combine them into sentences that make sense.

These people are bordering to be geniuses They need to pick up context quickly, they need to memorize fast and much. You seem to have no idea, John.

But Sibel Edmonds, by all accounts, is special even amongst the breed of good multi-language translators. Just look at her history, and what she had to put up with. Look at how she handles public appearances. She's unique. A great personality.

Calling her a "lowly translator" just shows how lowly the commentator himself is. You, Sir, take a slice from that woman's devotion and power, and I'll take you a bit more serious.

" i'm just wondering how a lowly translator for the FBI would have all of this inside sensitive information". -- Can't you imagine that she....

...a) learned even more about all that stuff *after* she was fired, because she was (confidentially) contacted by other people "in the know"
...b) learned even more about all that stuff *after* she was fired, because she on her own knows how to use a library, a computer, the Internet, Google, and research techniques?

She's gagged -- and look what she still is able to come out with, working around the gag orders. Look at all the activities she initiates with NSWBC -- and shut the f*ck up, John, with your patronizing, male, chauvinist language.

you're fishing

she's a lowly translator... It is a figure of speech. Besides, she is a very humble person. She even refers to herself as a "lowly translator".

Sibel Quotes

"I mean, come on, I wasn't some big diplomat or official or secret agent or something – I was just a lowly translator! So what could possibly be so dangerous about letting me speak? Why are they covering this up?"

"Essentially, there is only one investigation – a very big one, an all-inclusive one. Completely by chance, I, a lowly translator, stumbled over one piece of it."

Your attacks on John are extremely irrational...


that was the quote i was referencing

but this poster Jon Gold-fan is my newest hemmoroid stalker - attempting to smear me with every post.

you have to wonder why some people rely on personal insults - as opposed to good solid research and fact finding.

John Albanese, show me 2

John Albanese,

show me 2 things, please:

  1. where did I attempt to smear you with every post? [OK, don't overwork yourself, I posted 8 comments. Show me just 1 where I smeared you.] -- I'll publically apologize 3 times for each single occurance.
  2. where did you ever respond directly and on-topic to one of the points I raised in my comments? If you can show me one, I'll apologize again for having missed to see or recognize it as such. And we could then continue a meaningful exchange of ideas....


P.S.: Oh, and BTW: I'm not feeling smeared or insulted by your usage of "hemmoroid stalker" against me -- even if it's only for my stupidity to not understand the real or hidden meaning of this word combination.

Knock knock

Who's there?


Israeli who?

Israeli weird that Israel is only mentioned once in an essay about foreign influences. Maybe Sibel just counts them as domestic by this point.

I STILL want to know how al Qaeda managed to destroy building 7 and the towers. I also wonder what exactly is speculative or theoretical about the vast spy ring of 120 Israelis broken up before 9/11, and the additional 60 agents arrested and deported after 9/11, including the dancing israelis. They were probably dancing because Pakistan had just gone too far this time in its quest to topple the US.

You guys can joke and make fun of the physical evidence all you want, no one believes for a second that Larry Silverstein is working for the Pakistanis!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Show "Jon Gold" by John Albanese
Show "Jon Gold" by John Albanese

Knock knock.

Is that the central criticism he makes in this post? I don't think so.

no of course not

just an aside

people are taking me too seriously. i've been accused of being anti-CD so many times that i'm just having fun with it.

lets drop it.

Look, I know

and I appreciate the arguments of both "sides" enough to also appreciate the self-satire. But unfortunately, people are very easily tweaked on this issue and a lot of them completely lose their sense of humor over it. So yeah, let's drop it for a while.

In the meanwhile, you should check out that Ground Zero video just posted -- I'm curious if anyone knows the guys with the sign. They seem like troublemakers to me.

Can't view video here

...but what does the sign say? i usually know most of the GZ people.

The garish yellow side says

"USA DID 9/11."

The other side (I think) is black and white and I don't remember what it says, but it has a little picture of a plane in with the text.

They're suggesting that a guy who looks like a Loose Change proponent is a "government agent" because he asks them not to display their sign during the memorial service.

9/11 Was a US Black Op was on the other side

I remember that sign from NYC

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

What did you think?

The more I think about it, the more "Steve's" inflammatory rhetoric over on his "guest blog" sounds like that of an agent provocateur. He wants us to know how much of a fascist police state we live in, yadda yadda, because this "young government agent" tried to quash his free speech, yadda yadda. The response they were getting from passersby was not good either -- obviously, you could be your nicest, most reasonable truther self and still get people shrieking at you to move to Iraq. On the other hand, fomenting that kind of ugliness would be a great thing to do to make us all look bad.


I absolutely believe these guys were plants.

its interesting because one of the biggest schism in the New York movement took place as a result of Nico Haupt's insistence that we hold up a very similar inflammatory sign at ground zero.

Many of us felt that a sign that read "support the victim's familes - demand answers to 9/11" was more appropriate.

so - if these guys were indeed government plants - it is interesting that they were holding a "USA did 911" sign. it is the sort of absolutist statement that has continually hurt the credibility of this movement since its inception.

I guess...

You didn't see what I posted yesterday in regards to Sibel...

"That's the beauty of it. You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people. There may be a lot of them, but it is one group. And they are very dangerous for all of us."

"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."

Nope, didn't see that one.

Thanks for reposting it, I may not be the only one who missed it.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Saudi Arabia far more important than Israel

This is a fantastic article. Thanks for posting it, Jon. Everyone should read this. (BTW, I don't understand who is rating this post as anything less than "10", or why anyone would assign your comments below a -1.)

The value of this discussion to 9/11 Truth should be obvious, but apparently some people would rather deconstruct fuzzy photographs of the Pentagon.

America's "arms for oil" relationship with Saudi Arabia has long been in the public eye, and is good reason for Bush Co. to obstruct an investigation of 9/11, whether or not they planned it.

The obvious problem here is that the US/Saudi Arabia relationship is far more important than any other the US has with foreign countries, including Israel, and for that reason there will inevitably be a long, long line of stooges willing to protect this relationship, however corrupt it may be.

For the people obsessed with Israel, consider the impact of a withdrawal of relations with Saudi Arabia versus the same with Israel. Whatever ideology and money connects the the Israeli lobby in the US with Israel, it does not compare with what connects America to Saudi Arabia: OIL. There's no economy without oil. There's no military empire without oil.

Israel could disappear tomorrow, and America would continue unscathed. If the relationship with Saudi Arabia ends and the oil is cut off, America is totally screwed. Remember, the strategic value of a partnership with Israel exists only because of the Arab oil in the region.


"I don't understand who is rating this post as anything less than "10", or why anyone would assign your comments below a -1."

I'll give you a hint. It begins with an "N", and ends with an "I"-"C"-"O", and an "H"-"A"-"U"-"P"-"T".

He's my low voting shadow, along with the rest of his crew. I could post documentation from Cheney's desk that says, "Operation 9/11", and is dated, "1/2001", and it would still get a 1.

"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."


Instead of giving me a 1, you would see something like, "I was the first to talk about the document called, "Operation 9/11." You can read about it at my great site,"

"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."

It seems to me that you make the argument FOR Israeli....

....involvement, not against it....why would Saudi Arabia jeopardize its very lucrative arrangement with the US regarding oil sales, by angering America's public with possible exposure of its attacking America? It doesn't make sense to me. American troops are kept in SA to prop up a corrupt regime. Their government is dependent on us in more ways than one. Why in the world would SA want to attack us...?

Yeah, we are totally dependent on Saudi Oil, and then they turn around and prop up our Military-Industrial-Complex with their excess dollars from the oil sales...but what does that have to do with motive for attacking the US on 9/11?

Now, maybe you are referring to individual, dissenting Saudis, and not the government, financially supporting the alleged hijackers,when you refer to Saudi Involvment and that is something different. Yeah, I can see a motive for our government covering that up, not that it makes it right, of course.

Israel, on the other hand, is extremely vulnerable. It possesses no oil, or anything else that America needs. It profits immensely from facillatating an attack that gives the American government an excuse for attacking Israel's enemies all the while absorbing the human and economic costs involved in that war. What a great coup for Israel if it can somehow manipulate America into going to war to eradicate its enemies.

I see no facilitation from Israel

I see foreknowledge - and i see a very obvious answer to the cuo bono question (who benefits?) - but i do not see any evidence of operational support or facilitation from israel.

they appeared to have some foreknowledge. but they also appear to be publicly on the record warning us that the attacks were coming. i even remember reading a warning in the Jerusalem Post in the summer of 2001 that was extremely specific that al qaeda was planning a massive attack inside the USA aimed at financial and symbolic landmarks.

we even see evidence that Israelis were shadowing the alleged hijackers.

but - why would they if the hijackers were patsies - and Israel was complicit in the plot?

as much as some people would love to pin 9/11 on Israel, i feel that people may have personal reasons for always attempting to do so when there is so much evidence pointing in different directions.


I think there are aspects of this very convoluted story that may become clear only if you're willing to imagine a lot of "spy vs. spy" action, even (or especially) within nation states.

Why would some Israelis shadow the hijackers? Because patsies need handlers and they might have been handlers. Meanwhile, other individuals in Israeli intelligence might have been perplexed by information they had that attacks were imminent, information that was meant to bolster the patsies' "back story."

The "dancing Israelis" is a facet of this story that I would like to know a LOT more about, along with the non-Arab guys in the explosive-tainted van on whatever bridge that was.

People may have personal reasons for pinning aspects of 9/11 on Israel. On the other hand, the attempt to pin 9/11 on extremist Muslims who "hate us for our freedoms" has been quite successful, and in terms of cui bono, what national interest might benefit from an American population that accepts the demonization of the Muslim world?

well yes...

that's why i mention cui bono. Israel clearly benefited.

personally, my opinion is that israel knew it was coming - but i don't think they were handlers. i really believe 9/11 was designed by american black ops with pakistan lending an operational role. i believe we had the tacit approval of israel - and I always viewed the intifadah of late 2000 as the early psyops associated with the coming american operation.

but i think israel was maybe purposely left out of the operational loop, for strategic reasons.

i feel pretty certain that Atta was an american asset with very dirty ties to drug running and money laundering - but also an american trained pilot who may have been inserted into the wargames. he may even be a TRUE patsy in that he may actually be dead - killed on 9/11 when the war games suddenly turned real on him.

Saudi Arabia clearly was funding the San Diego cell.

Pakistan the Florida cell.

But - why? i am sure the USA could have very quietly funded these guys in a much less conspicuous way.

well - i think Saudi Arabia benefited from 9/11 because Saddam Hussein and IRan are a constant threat to their monarchy. they too benefit from demonizing radical islam.

i believe that they were agreeing to implicate themselves as a way of buying-into the war - and assuring that they would be protected by the USA when the regional war erupted. i believe pakistan and the saudis had to prove their loyalty by agreeing to be complicit.

because - when you really think about it - with the money ambramoff and his cronies were throwing around there is NO reason why pakistan needed to wire a measly $100,000 to Atta.

it was blood money. a blood vow. we're all in this together.

of course - these are all opinions.

re: the Dancing Israelis...

... while I do not have a completely well-formed theory about the particulars of foreign state involvement in 9/11, it is difficult to avoid the fact that there appears to have been foreknowledge- and possible complicity or involvement- by some part of the Israeli intelligence apparatus AND the Pakistani ISI.

With respect to the subject of the Dancing Israelis... Those wishing to actually learn more about the matter should check out the following video.

This is a very interesting documentary, made by a Jewish American, who embarks on a mission to explore and debunk "The Protocols of Zion".

In the course of his journey- he encounters no shortage of obnoxious anti-semites- which of course you'd expect. Yet at the same, he also performs a valuable service to the 9/11 Truth community, by interviewing both the woman who initially reported seeing the "Dancing Israelis", then interviewing a cop who arrested them and also (incredibly) showing an excerpt from an Israeli TV Talk Show which featured 3 of the 5 arrested Israelis (while 2 watched from the audience).

This segment is viewable at about 23:30 minutes in, and lasts thru 26:42.

Most damningly, one of the young lads offers a very peculiar defense to the talk-show host, claiming not to have been involved in the attack, but rather that, "Our purpose was to document the event." This is a very troubling admission, suggesting foreknowledge - akin to Silverstein's WTC 7 admission in "America Rebuilds". That they were celebrating the collapse - a fact verified by even their defense attorney - suggests even complicity in the event in some way.

As many of you know, it has since been announced by the FBI that at least 2 of the 5 were Mossad agents.

It must be stated- those who focus exclusively on Israel as author of 9/11 (such as Hufschmid) are missing the bigger picture- just as those who focus exclusively on Pakistan, or whoever. Whatever the Truth is- it certainly appears to involve several states- including our own.

And on that note- I concur with the anonymous post earlier- that it is peculiar that Sibel cites Bob Edwards book so liberally in building her case (largely and strangely) against Saudi Arabia- while ignoring the fact that Edwards is known to have been dining on 9/11 with the very Pakistani ISI General who authorized the transfer of $100,000 to Atta on days prior. I want very badly to believe in Sibel Edmonds- she's right out of Central Casting for a TV-Ready Whistleblower... Yet this omission is peculiar.

see also here for a more robust account....

of the dancing israelis:

My problem with Hufschmid is that his approach is too combative and dripping with sarcasm and invective, much like Victor Thorn's otherwise comprehensive and solid analysis in 9/11 Evil.

It leads me to believe that discussion of Israel is only encouraged when it is polarized between Israel-does-no-wrong and Judaism and Israel are out to kill every Gentile.

With the debate thus polarized, most people wioll stay out of it, or pick the less seedy side. Unfortunately, the result is a right wing movement in Israel that hides behind the charge of anti-semitism hurled at their critics to actually conduct themselves in reprehensible ways, including being involved in 9/11.

It will be tragic in the end for Jews everywhere if we allow a few bad apples to intimidate us with their smears, because they will be happy to fan the flames of hate against their fellow Jews just as long as it serves their purposes. The haters on both sides are to blame, the rest have been duped. Do the right thing, people, it's worth it. And if you're not doing it because you sincerely believe all the world's people can peacefully share all the world, then quit now.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Do you mean Bob Graham?

Do you mean Bob Graham?

oh dear, there we go

"as much as some people would love to pin 9/11 on Israel, i feel that people may have personal reasons for always attempting to do so when there is so much evidence pointing in different directions."

This is the kind of irresponsible statement that I've mentioned before. When there is abundant evidence implicating certain Israeli elements in 9/11, someone has to pretend that only people with "personal reasons" would try to point the finger at them.

Wow, John. Tell me you are not implying that I'm anti-semitic, or a neo-nazi, and that that's why I am pissed about dancing Israelis being caught dressed as Arabs driving a van with boxcutters and thousands in cash after being seen photographing and celebrating the burning towers, and telling their arresting officer that the PALESTINIANS were our problem, same as them, the Israelis.

Because that sounds to me like what you're saying, but I think you should be big enough to come out and say it, OK?

And yeah, so Silverstein and Bibi Netanyahu talked every week on the phone. No biggie, after all, we know Larry S is just a victim in all of this whose buildings collapsed because of mean Pakistani funded hijackers. Hey wait, are you , like, anti-Pakistanic?

Look dude, I'm not for assigning blame without proper investigation, but you are really pushing it now!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Real Truther

I'm getting tired of defending my statements to you.

i did NOT call you anti-semitic. and half the words you put in my mouth regarding CD, Pakistan and my film are distortions of my real feelings, beliefs and intentions.

you are too defensive and rightiously indignant in your responses. lay off. i have my opinions - just like everyone else here - and i will not allow you to keep accusing me of being a shill simply because i disagree with you.

disingenuous (adj.) : feigning innocence

John, anyone can look back at your comment and see what you said--essentially that "some" people who try to "pin 9/11" on Israel do so for "personal reasons". Trying to pretend that you were not trying to insinuate that the only reason I focus on Israel is because I'm probably anti-semitic and not because most of the evidence points to their involvement is so dishonest and I think anyone can see that. And I'm not accusing you of being a shill, I'm doing the same thing you're doing to me--INSINUATING it. But I can admit that, because unlike "some" people I don't have a problem with honesty. Just like SOME people are anti-semitic, right John? Of course you didn't mean me. Clown.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


i'm done here

best of luck

"i'm done here", said John Albanese

"i'm done here", said John Albanese...

...and then utterly disappointed his tired readers, by immediately going on and on and on (see below), even starting to respond to his own comments (to make sure the thread does not dry out)...

John, how can I take you and your comments serious in the future? First, you start off a pointless bickering back and forth with your "satire" remarks (which only proof how insensitive and how much missing of foresight you are with your style of commenting), and then you promise to "be done" -- only to continue in the next second??

A fan...

Of Jon Gold's would know that he considers John Albanese a friend and colleague.

Everyone just relax.

"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."

In this case....

...may I suggest you pick up the phone, or write a private email, and talk your friend and colleague back into a higher level of sanity?

your earlier post

was constructive and i appreciated it. (a few pages back) please see my response.

but - this is indeed an open forum and if you are not interested in the discussion please just move on.

i for one find the 'zionist landlord' comment offensive - and since Real Truther seems so gun-ho in challenging me - calling me a shill - insulting me personally - i am simply pointing this out.

i suppose you could challenge me to take the higher ground - but, in many respects the squeeky wheel will always get the oil if people allow anti-semitic remarks and accusations of 'shill' to go unchallenged.

anyway. lets move on.

Thanks for your response to

Thanks for your response to my earlier post.

I just completed my own reply to that; I explain there why I am disappointed by its actual contents.

" this is indeed an open forum and if you are not interested in the discussion please just move on."
What makes you think I'm not interested in the discussion?

Thanks for the friendly welcome by telling me to "move on" on the first day I dare to raise my voice. You are even more unfriendly to newbies than the Old Guard is on the LKML list I follow elsewhere. I'm sure you'll *not* establish yourself, as a person, as one of the top 9/11 movement recruiters, if this indeed is your standard attitude to newcomers. But maybe you just had a bad day today? We all have, sometimes. I hope it will be better tomorrow then.

In your earlier post you had said "we can't ostracize new members simply because they do not "get" CD." -- Are you now trying to proof that it is, however, OK to ostracize new members simply because they dare to point out to John Albanese when his approach repells newbies?

I've now found your movie on the internet, thanks to someone (Real Truther?) hinting at it in this thread. Tomorrow evening after I watched it I'll know if you as a filmmaker will stand a chance to be more successfull than you as a person today in this forum were.

Show "Explain what you meant" by John Albanese
Show "the evil zionist landlord?" by John Albanese
Show "like this?" by John Albanese

Silverstein doesn't have a moustache...

And that guy isn't holding dynamite, so I'd have to say no.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Your the one who instigated

Your the one who instigated this pointless bickering, and now your facilitating it further.

Could the both of you just STFU already?

this was in response to

this was in response to Albanse's picture

I disagree

I think Albanese just knows how to bait people into exposing hiw stupid and bigoted they are.

SIIIIGH - here's a glossary John:

OK Mr. I'm outta here John ADLbanese--

Zionist: a proponent of the idea of an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine

landlord: the owner of a building who rents out space to others

arson: to willfully destroy, by use of fire and or explosives intentionally and surreptitiously set

insurance fraud: to collect insurance proceeds on false pretenses, i.e. by denying arson and ascribing blame to forces unknown related to a fake terror attack

guilty: what Larry Silverstein is of all of the above.

race-baiter: someone who purposely tries to incite racial anger where none exists (see Albanese, John)

shill: see race-baiter

Jew: a Jewish person. someone who practices Judaism or identifies with Jewish culture. Note: is not (yet) required to be a Zionist. is not necessarily any more guilty of a global conspiracy than anyone else. is entitled to all the same rights and privileges as all other human beings, including Palestinians.

Any more questions, Grand Inquisitor ADLbanese?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



why don't you also blame that 'black' secretary of state?

or that "italian" mayor Guiliani?

why is silverstein's jewishness even mentioned?

Show "ADLbanese?" by John Albanese

did I say shill? I meant shrill!

My God, John--thanks for the primer here on smear tactics. If you STILL don't know the difference between someone who is Jewish and someone who is a Zionist, then you need help, seriously. But I know you know the difference, and I know what your real intent is here, and so, I think, does everyone else.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


wait, so all Jews are

wait, so all Jews are Zionists now? i guess i missed the memo.

I think, in light of the

I think, in light of the evidence Edmonds rehearses and in light of what the 9/11 Commission Report tries to avoid, there are several possibilities here, and I agree that Israel is vulnerable and this suggests a motive.

First, yes, 9/11 could have been the brainchild of dissenting Saudi royals. Certainly there is evidence of Saudi royals being connected to the alleged hijackers (see Al-Bayoumi's role, for example). It is possible that the rationale here was not entirely (collectively) rational. Human beings are like that.

The majority of Saudis absolutely hate America. It's only the ruling regime that benefits from American solidarity.

And, of course, most of the alleged hijackers had Saudi passports.

I realize there are multiple possibilities within the possibility mentioned (Saudi hijackers being used as pawns in a US intelligence operation, for example).

Perhaps, any way you look at 9/11, Edmonds' essay is equally valuable. Whether Saudis or Israelis have undue influence in American domestic affairs, her point about influence peddling remainds valid.

All I'm saying, I guess, is that, materially, Saudi Arabia's oil is much more important than Israel's ideology or money or promise to evangelicals of a Second Coming. That doesn't prove anything by itself, but I think it should be considered by people who obsess over Israeli manipulations on 9/11.

I'm sure Israel and Saudi Arabia were somehow involved in 9/11, based on what we already know, and the elites will protect both relationships. But ultimately it's more important to retain Saudi Arabia as an ally than it is to retain Israel.

In reality, of course, both are treated with equal preference (see "US foreign military aid" figures).

Just a question. If Israel

Just a question. If Israel "disappears" tomorrow, where exactly would all their nuclear weapons go?

You talk as if America is an independant country. You talk as if you don't know what and who Israel actualy is.

read this book and you will change your mind

Who are the hijackers?

I'm taking a little time 'off' to read some novels.

Remeber the last building to mysteriously collapse in NYC? You know that Brownstone on 7/10/2006. The news told us it was caused by a suicide attempt of the owner. Turns out the owner is actually this guy, and he wrote this book.

His book, published in 2000, is described "With the backdrop of ever-worsening global warming, it's the story of a Svengali-like mind-manipulator (Lute Aurum) who teams up with an American business icon (Jeremy Steel) to take over the White House.
When their puppet (Aldous Fromm) is installed as president, Aurum and Steel are poised to pull off the greatest heist in history. They plan to grab Canada for themselves by hiding behind a new version of "Manifest Destiny": What's good for America is good for the world. "

Apparently the brownstone was a pre-CIA intelligence gathering spot

It's time for me to escape into a good novel, this is also on my reading list

...i suppose

...if i make a crack about CD theories i will be shot.

Why is this copy so much deteriorated?

Good read !

So, "Thumbs up" for reproducing this most excellent article on 911blogger, Jon Gold !

But, "Boo" for loosing so much important information in the process: the original contains links (plus a bio blurb of Sibel Edmonds), which the sloppy copy just lost !

People, go read the original and follow the links as well. And all those new visitors to this website, who encounter the name Sibel Edmonds for the first time:

"Sibel Edmonds is the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege”; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. PEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award."

Dave Emory, anyone?

Do any of you all listen to Dave Emory's radio program? I never see him mentioned here, which seems odd. His most recent program with Daniel Hopsicker touches on some of the topics being discussed here in the comments on this particular Sibel Edmunds blog. He characterizes the 9/11 Truth Movement as a whole as mostly bogus and lead by anti-semitic shills trying to throw people off the track. He thinks the controlled demolition theories are bogus. Though, he praises the work of Sibel Edmunds and Daniel Hopsicker. See Nov. 14, 2006, here:


Hopsicker being a consistent antagonist of the movement. Just the other day I saw him equating controlled demolition with lizards from outer space.

Cool trick! 

Familar with Emory - I listened to a few of his radio shows about 3 years ago. He seemed to go on and on endlessly about "Islamofascism" and while some of it was interesting, his voice had a highly narcotic effect and I kept drifting off...

Why call anyone anti-semite when they question the Zionists

There's a big difference..Go back to Real Truthers Glossary.
Besides, 9/11 truthers...Ok I'll speak for myself on this one.
There is a considerable amount of evidence that reveals the
Mossad knowingly had the information of details about 9/11 BEFORE it happened.....The Larger issue of this is for you, John Albanese, to figure out why the MSM does not report the suspicious ommisions and coverups involved with 9/11 dilligently. To Me, IMO there are two factors with this; One is that the corporate sponsors to the Press TV/ Newspapers have much influence on how and what gets reported consistently. The other is what brings up the Zionist issue;The Who owns the news organizations?...check that one out for yourself and you will find that virtually all are owned by Jewish-Zionists,with the exception of Rupert Murdoch..But his wife is Jewish, and He is a strong supporter of Israeli policy.
But how many people really know what happened to Sibel Edmonds? Not that many, thanks to the lack of press attention to a situation that needs exposure from the MSM.

Show "Because you are really Neo-Nazis in Disguise ?" by Shalom (not verified)


Before you ASSUME that I am a Nazi...perhaps you can elaborate on the Judah history, because I sure can;

The true start of this affair occurred on a day in 458 BC .On that day the petty Palestinian tribe of Judah (earlier disowned by the Israelites) produced a racial creed, the disruptive effect of which on subsequent human affairs may have exceeded that of explosives or epidemics. This was the day on which the theory of the master-race was set up as "the Law".

At the time Judah was a small tribe among the subject-peoples of the Persian king, and what today is known as "the West" could not even be imagined. Now the Christian era is nearly two thousand years old and "Western civilization", which grew out of it, is threatened with disintegration.

The creed born in Judah 2,500 years ago has chiefly brought this about. The process, from original cause to present effect, can be fairly clearly traced because the period is, in the main, one of verifiable history.

The creed which a fanatical sect produced that day has shown a great power over the minds of men throughout these twenty-five centuries; hence its destructive achievement. Why it was born at that particular moment, or ever, is something that none can explain. This is among the greatest mysteries of our world, unless the theory that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction is valid in the area of religious thought; so that the impulse which at that remote time set many men searching for a universal, loving God produced this fierce counter-idea of an exclusive, vengeful deity.

Judah-ism was retrogressive even in 458 BC, when men in the known world were beginning to turn their eyes away from idols and tribal gods and to look for a God of all men, of justice and of neighbourliness. Confucius and Buddha had already pointed in that direction and the idea of one-God was known among the neighbouring peoples of Judah. Today the claim is often made that the religious man, Christian, Muslim or other, must pay respect to Judaism, whatever its errors, on one incontestable ground: it was the first universal religion, so that in a sense all universal religions descend from it. Every Jewish child is taught this. In truth, the idea of the one-God of all men was known long before the tribe of Judah even took shape, and Judaism was above all else the denial of that idea. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (manuscripts of which were found in the tombs of kings of 2,600 BC, over two thousand years before the Judaist "Law" was completed) contains the passage: "Thou art the one, the God from the very beginnings of time, the heir of immortality, self-produced and self-born; thou didst create the earth and make man". Conversely, the Scripture produced in Judah of the Levites asked, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the Gods?" (Exodus).

The sect which attached itself to and mastered the tribe of Judah took this rising concept of one-God of all-peoples and embodied it in its Scripture only to destroy it, and to set up the creed based on its denial. It is denied subtly, but with scorn, and as the creed is based on the theory of the master-race this denial is necessary and inevitable. A master-race, if there be one, must itself be God.

The creed which was given force of daily law in Judah in 458 BC was then and still is unique in the world. It rested on the assertion, attributed to the tribal deity (Jehovah), that "the Israelites" (in fact, the Judahites) were his "chosen people" who, if they did all his "statutes and judgments", would be set over all other peoples and be established in a "promised land". Out of this theory, whether by forethought or unforeseen necessity, grew the pendent theories of "captivity" and "destruction". If Jehovah were to be worshipped, as he demanded, at a certain place in a specified land, all his worshippers had to live there.

Obviously all of them could not live there, but if they lived elsewhere, whether by constraint or their own choice, they automatically became "captives" of "the stranger", whom they had to "root out", "pull down" and "destroy". Given this basic tenet of the creed, it made no difference whether the "captors" were conquerors or friendly hosts; their ordained lot was to be destruction or enslavement.

Before they were destroyed or enslaved, they were, for a time, to be "captors" of the Judahites, not in their own right, but because the Judahites, having failed in "observance", deserved punishment. In this way, Jehovah revealed himself as the one-God of all-peoples: though he "knew" only the "chosen people", he would employ the heathen to punish them for their "transgressions", before meting out the foreordained destruction to these heathen.

The Judahites had this inheritance thrust on them. It was not even theirs, for the "covenant", according to these Scriptures, had been made between Jehovah and "the children of Israel", and by 458 BC the Israelites, spurning the non-Israelitish Judahites, had long since been absorbed by other mankind, taking with them the vision of a universal, loving God of all men. The Israelites, from all the evidence, never knew this racial creed which was to come down through the centuries as the Jewish religion, or Judaism. It stands, for all time, as the product of Judah of the Levites.

What happened before 458 BC is largely lore, legend and mythology, as distinct from the period following, the main events of which are known. Before 458 BC, for instance, there were in the main only "oral traditions"; the documentary period begins in the two centuries leading up to 458 BC, when Judah had been disavowed by the Israelites. At this stage, when the word-of-mouth tradition became written Scripture, the perversion occurred. The surviving words of the earlier Israelites show that their tradition was a widening one of neighbourliness under a universal God. This was changed into its opposite by the itinerant priests who segregated the Judahites and established the worship of Jehovah as the god of racialism, hatred and revenge.

In the earlier tradition Moses was a great tribal leader who heard the voice of one-God speak from a burning bush and came down from a mountain bearing this one-God's moral commandments to the people. The time when this tradition took shape was one when the idea of religion was first moving in the minds of men and when all the peoples were borrowing from each other's traditions and thought.

Whence the idea of one-God may have come has already been shown, although the earlier Egyptians themselves may have received it from others. The figure of Moses himself, and his Law, both were taken from material already existing. The story of Moses's discovery in the bulrushes was plainly borrowed from the much earlier legend (with which it is identical) of a king of Babylonia, Sargon the Elder, who lived between one and two thousand years before him; the Commandments much resemble earlier law codes of the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians. The ancient Israelites built on current ideas, and by this means apparently were well on the way to a universal religion when they were swallowed up by mankind.

Then Judah put the process into reverse, so that the effect is that of a film run backward. The masters of Judah, the Levites, as they drew up their Law also took what they could use from the inheritance of other peoples and worked it into the stuff they were moulding. They began with the one just God of all men, whose voice had been briefly heard from the burning bush (in the oral tradition) and in the course of five books of their written Law turned him into the racial, bargaining Jehovah who promised territory, treasure, blood and power over others in return for a ritual of sacrifice, to be performed at a precise place in a specified land.

Thus they founded the permanent counter-movement to all universal religions and identified the name Judah with the doctrine of self-segregation from mankind, racial hatred, murder in the name of religion, and revenge.

By the time of that achievement of 458 BC, many centuries after any possible period when Moses may have lived, much had happened in Canaan. The nomadic Habiru, supplanting the native Canaanites by penetration, intermarriage, settlement or conquest, had thrown off a tribe called the Ben Yisrael, or Children of Israel, which had split into a number of tribes, very loosely confederated and often at war with each other. The main body of these tribes, the Israelites, held the north of Canaan. In the south, isolated and surrounded by native Canaanitish peoples, a tribe called Judah took shape. This was the tribe from which the racial creed and such words as "Judaism", "Jewish" and "Jew" in the course of centuries emerged.

From the moment when it first appears as an entity this tribe of Judah has a strange look. It was always cut off, and never got on well with its neighbours. Its origins are mysterious. It seems from the beginning, with its ominous name, somehow to have been set apart, rather than to have been "chosen". The Levitical Scriptures include it among the tribes of Israel, and as the others mingled themselves with mankind this would leave it the last claimant to the rewards promised by Jehovah to "the chosen people". However, even this claim seems to be false, for the Jewish Encyclopaedia impartially says that Judah was "in all likelihood a non-Israelitish tribe".

This tribe with the curious air was the one which set out into the future saddled with the doctrine drawn up by the Levites, namely, that it was Jehovah's "chosen people" and, when it had done "all my statutes and judgments", would inherit a promised land and dominion over all peoples.

Among these "statutes and judgments" as the Levites finally edited them appeared, repeatedly, the commands, "utterly destroy", "pull down", "root out". Judah was destined to produce a nation dedicated to destruction.

An anti-semite is not someone who hates Jews;
it is someone the Zionists hate

Thanks for anti-Judaism Dissertation

How can it get more clear that Mr. Mike ACTUALLY does despise, denigrate, and hate Judaism ? Look at ALL the research he has put into PROVING that Judaism is a "gutter religion". His arguments are precisely those used by the Protestants and Catholics of Nazi Germany.

Afterwards, he redefines anti-semitism in such a way as to exclude himself.

Naturally, in order that the Nazis win all arguments on this forum, the arguments of those who disagree with them shall be stricken from the record. In this way, the Mikes of the world can shadow box and play air guitar to the applause of millions of imaginary fans.

PS: Notice he doesn't do a hatchet job on Christianity.

Zionists are the equivalent of evangelicals

A good place to start to learn about this is Israel Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion. Shahak who passed away in June of 2001 was an Israeli Jew, a teacher of chemistry, a veteran of the IDF. He, unlike Shalom, Israel Forever, and any number of others is able to think critically about Judaism throiugh history. The same way normal people do with Christianity and Islam without getting called bigots or self-haters. Zionists are known for enforcing a totalitarian belief system that privileges Jews over non-Jews, fosters hostility, and harbors imperial designs on land that they claim the bible says is theirs. It is BIG TROUBLE, which is why they try to puff up Ïslamofascism" in people's minds a the only real threat. See, you're either with the Islamofascists or with the Zionists (hi Nancy Pelosi!). The desperation on the part of apologists for this horridly racist and perverted form of Jewish identity is palpable these days. Truly, to understand the world in these troubling times one has to understand Zionism. Ignore those who will savage you for daring to learn about it from an Israeli Jew and will invoke Nazism against you. Their movement is dying--they have no other way to respond. Trust also that you are doing the right thing by Jews everywhere in opposing this oppressive system that tries to force their involvement in crimes on penalty of slander and ostracism. We shall overcome someday.... soon. Hatred is dying, and that is good news for EVERYONE.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Israel Shahak

I'm glad to see Real Truther mention the late Israel Shahak, who wrote a number of extremely important books exposing the criminal nature of Israeli society. Shahak pointed out how the greatest oppressors of Jews throughout their classical period of history were other Jews: namely the Rabbi class.

Israel Shamir is an Israeli writer who has written very interesting and enlightening books that are must-reads for understanding the context of AIPAC, 911, NWO etc. Please check him out.


none of this has anything to do with 9/11...

and when Real Truther refers to Larry Silverstein as "the Zionist Landlord" you are very CLEARLY showing your sentiments about him as a jew.

I want to know why this board is censoring any post that seeks to point out the inappropriate nature of inserting "zionism" into this discussion?


what does the Sibel Edwards article have to do with 911? It generally relates, just as did my previous comment. To the extent that Israel was involved/caused 911, then understanding the racist nature of the jewish "religion" is certianly profoundly relevant.

If Larry Silverstein had been a Saudi muslim

You can bet your burning bush that his background would be a part of the iscussion. Jewish? No problem. Zionist? Let's see... Zionists are fanatically obsessed with preserving a discriminatory state in land that they were given by people who didn't own it after which they terrorized hundreds of thousands of its natives into leaving, not allowing them by law to return. The Zionist state owns 92% of the land in Israel and makes every effort to make life unbearable for people who aren't Jewish. Everyone in the Zionist state has to carry an ID card that tells their "nationality" meaning RACE/ETHNICITY--Arab, Jewish, Druze, etc.

Larry Silverstein had close associations with two of the most rabid right wing leaders of Israel--Netanyahu and Sharon. Given the dancing Israelis, t he AIPAC spying scandals (among other spying scandals) the principle of cui bono, etc. How is it wrong to point out where Larry Silverstein's political allegiances lie? How is it any different than what is being done to Muslims in AMerica times 100 with racial profiling?

Calling people bigots when they demand reasonable and logical scrutiny of a man's political allegiances, when his property was that which was destroyed in a false attack that benefitted both him financially and the country he supports is again, such a dishonest tactic that it exposes those who use it for what they are--apologists for a potential (and likely) criminal.

Larry Silverstein is the OJ Simpson of unexplained building collapses, sorry to break it to you. And the dancing Israelis are like the Dancing Itos. Not really but I had to throw that in. The dancing Israelis are simply scum who were happy to see people being murdered. Explain, justify, and make counter-accusations--nothing will change the reality that you want people to ignore. And if you think you're helping Jews by protecting Jewish (but more importantly Zionist) suspects in an unsolved crime, you are 100% wrong--you're doing exactly the opposite, and how well you know it. All that matters to you is that Jews feel hated and threatened so they will embrace the Zionist state, just as Americans are being lied to and made to feel threatened so that they rush to embrace the "Burning Bush" state. How stupid do you think we are?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


"Larry Silverstein is the OJ Simpson....."

".....of unexplained building collapses"

That deserves a headline.


(And so true). Kudos.

O.J..... amost not funny

Waiting for the book.....

"If I Did Implode the Entire WTC Complex..... This is How I Would Do It" - Larry Silverstein

But is it racism?

So OJ is found not guilty, indeed the evidence against him was purely circumstancial, but everyone assumes (99% most likely correctly) that he is guilty. Jokes are made on TV, etc. Is it because he's black? Or because he got away with murder? Circumstancially, Silverstein is quite obviously suspect of conspiracy to commit arson, insurance fraud, and even murder--but no investigation has ever been initiated against him, and all 9/11 court cases have been stovepiped to a single judge, Alvin Hellerstein who also happens to be an active Zionist. Can someone say racketeering? Sure, but if you do you're going to be accused of bigotry in a way that Jay Leno would never be accused of being a bigot for saying the same of OJ. Double standard? Hells yeah!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



Dude.... enough with the logic and rational thought already!!!

Thanks Real Truther

That is what I had alluded to..To point out the perverse of the Zionist zealotry and the origins of it. I despised the Nazi's and it was a disgusting display of inhumanity and evil that should never happen again.
But to call Me a Nazi, Shalom, and Israel Forever; to say I left out the Christians automaticly puts Me in the category of something I'm not, is a knee jerk reaction on your part.
The point I made is the ZIONISTS are the ones who are the trouble here, and they are in strong positions of power,which includes the AIPAC, along with members,elected and appointed of the U.S. Government, and within the banking industry and corporate structure of England, the U.S., the World Bank (Where one Zionist,Paul Wolfowitz was appointed head of by Bush) and Israel. The current Prime Minister of Israel is another of the Talmud doctrine that many Israelis do not support. But hey, since Israel does not have a Constitution...they can use ours since our government does not seem to use it anymore!
And these are, so proclaimed ; Christians in this government. When religion is used for power and gain in favor in mans eyes and not God's, then the end result is the evil spectrum that turns out witchunts, inquisitions, oppresson, miserable governments that have no qualms about who they destroy ;9/11 and beyond to now.
To get to the guilty parties of 9/11, there also has to be a clarification about who and possibly what other nations also
had a stake in this false war on terrorism also known as 9/11. To point out possible players and their idealism is to show a motive and why they would benefit from being involved. This was My only intention.

thanks Mike

People really have to try to understand where the hatred comes from all around. It is from those who want to poison the debate before it can even begin by drawing boundaries that are based on ignorance and lies.

I'll say this again--anyone who thinks they are doing right by innocent Jewish people when they ignore the crimes of the Israeli government are 100% tragically wrong. Falling for the smear tactics of those who whip out the accusation of anti-semitism is the last thing that is going to help Jewish people. It basically says to the world "Jewish people can never be accused of conspiring--even if a few of them conspire it is wicked to say so!"

People should really read Israel Shahak's Jewish Histroy, Jewish Religion--it will really open your eyes and you will learn how to truly support Jews everywhere--by helping them break free of the totalitarian alliance between secular Zionists and fanatically religious rabbis. It is the same struggle we are fighting against sick capitalist fake Christians like Bush and their evilgelical fanatical christian allies.

In the process, you will be helping humanity to break free of the constant cycle of warfare, wage slavery, and racial discord.

Or you could keep playing the game. Your choice.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Yes, recognizing Bush's fake Christianity of Convenience....

....and his mega-church power-hungry fundamentalist allies who practice a Christianity that is seemingly totally based on Jesus' opposition to gay marriage and abortion (Huh?), is definitely worth mentioning as completely repugnant and blatantly hypocritical....and would've been mentioned earlier in this dicussion of possible Israeli complicity, if those fake Christians' ties to 9/11 weren't tangential at best to that day....not that they don't have a lot of other things to answer for....

Judaism doesn't have a monopoly on it's potential to be misused or exploited by criminals.

Sibel - Part 1: The Foreign Agent Factor

Commenters on this post missed the very first line, the sub-HEADLINE itself:

Part 1: The Foreign Agent Factor
By Sibel Edmonds

More will hopefully be revealed in future parts and this "Part 1: The Foreign Agent Factor" will expand to tie in to perhaps "The inside money triail", "The plot and players", "The deception and cover-up"... the possibilities are endless, if Sibel has other "whistleblower's" information that is not covered by Ashcroft's gag order. In fact, the gag order itself implicates Ashcroft and his adminstration in the White House.

I'm sure that Daniel Ellsberg learned much second hand additional information from other "patriotic whistleblowers" about the Vietnam war after the Pentagon Papers were published and he faced criminal prosecution. I believe Ellsberg and Sibel Edmonds know each other and have discussed her strained relationship with the government and disclosure of the truths she knows, first hand and second hand.



2002: Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged), re-printed in 2002, provides a new definition of Anti Semitism which has not been updated since 1956. It reads,
"Anti-Semitism: (1) hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination (2) opposition to Zionism (3) sympathy for the opponents of Israel."
It was definition (2) and (3) that were added in the 2002 edition, just before the USA decide to invade Iraq under orders from the State of Rothschild, I mean Israel. Also this year, the Prime Minister of Israel, war criminal, Ariel Sharon, orders the massacre in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. Best get that definition updated to protect these criminals.

The word has become meaningless

"Anti-Semitism is a term which is bandied about too loosely. It ought to be reserved to denote
the real anti-Jewish temper of violent prejudice. If used indiscriminately about all who attempt
to discuss Jewish characteristics and Jewish world-power, it may in time arrive at the estate of
respectability and honor."

Henry Ford 1920