TVNewsLies Discusses the Real Ties Between 9/11 and Iraq

9/11 and Iraq – The Concealed Connection! - tvnewslies.org

It is astounding that so many people who denounce the war against Iraq are so naïve about its origins. One of the strongest arguments by those opposed to the Bush/PNAC war policy in the Middle East maintains that there was NO connection between Iraq and the events of September 11th. That allegation, while well motivated, is entirely and absolutely false.

No, Iraq was not involved with, nor did its leader support Al Qaeda. No, Iraq was not involved in the planning or operation of the 9/11 attacks. And no, not a single alleged hijacker was an Iraqi. It’s “no” to the Iraq nexus all the way down the line.

And still, the attacks on 9/11 and the invasion and occupation of Iraq are interminably and intrinsically intertwined and neither tragedy can be fully discussed without the other. The hard fact is: had there been no attack on American soil on September 11th, there would not and could not have been a war in Iraq. And, conversely, if there was going to be military action by the US against Iraq by Bushco, there first had to be an unprecedented attack on American soil.

Sadly, but predictably, the correct connection between the two has never adequately surfaced. Certainly, the corporate news networks were fully complicit in shaping the public’s belief that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11. Much of the nation, and a great percentage of the military still hold that belief, and little has been done to expose this calculated fabrication. Still, despite all we have learned, no one in the public arena has focused on the accurate and vitally important connection between the two events.

Be sure to check out the link for the full article.

What username is Mark

What username is Mark Roberts at JREF? Does he post at Loose change Too? Who was that that had a more intelligent converstion with Mark Roberts?

There's SOME evidence

The article claims there is NO evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. That's simply not true. There is SOME evidence, whether true or not, it's hard to tell. But it's evidence nonetheless. What evidence, you might ask? 1) Salman Pak training of hijackers supervised by Iraqi agents 2) Atta's meeting in Prague with Iraqi agents, 3) There is evidence that Saddam's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who helped make the bombs used in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, 4) evidence of Saddam's funding of Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel.

You can argue that the evidence is false, but to say there is NO evidence is simply not true. The American people have heard about the evidence sited above, which is why 69% percent of Americans polled in 2003 by the Washington Post said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Furthermore, the same people who claim there is NO evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 are usually the same people who claiim there is NO evidence of Saddam's regime having Weapons of Mass Destruction. That claim is also untrue. Again, there is SOME evidence that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. And there is SOME evidence that he moved these weapons to Syria prior to the 2003 American/British invasion of Iraq.

Again, you can argue that the evidence was false, but to say there in NO evidence is untrue.

There is further evidence of bin Laden family business connections with the Carlyle Group that should be explored. Given the fact that chartered flights directly after 9/11 to members of the bin Laden family should increase our suspicion that Middle Easterns were somehow on the same page of involvement in 9/11 as were corrupt Washington insiders.

Follow ALL the evidence, folks, not just the evidence that fits with your preconceptions.

"Again, there is SOME

"Again, there is SOME evidence that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. And there is SOME evidence that he moved these weapons to Syria prior to the 2003 American/British invasion of Iraq."

Where could I get a glimpse of that evidence?

evidence of WMD going to Syria

2004 quote from David Kay, former head of UN weapons search team in Iraq

"We know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

That is evidence from a very important source. His testimony would have huge influence in any investigation.

Could he be making it up? Could he be paid off? Is he an agent for Israel or the NWO? I'm not disputing that any of those are possible. But you wonder why so many people discount the 9/11 truth movement, when so many in the movement are willing to ignore evidence such as this, and do everything they can to debunk it.

SOME evidence=bad evidence=no evidence

While the connection between Iraq and 9/11 has been thoroughly debunked there are still some die-harders that refuse to, well, die. Let me give you a helping hand. It won’t be too difficult since I can count on even the White House as an ally. So I say to all the Faux News sycophants: turn off Bill O’Reilly for a moment and come with me to reality.

Anon’s (short for anonymous) brings out four common points as evidence of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11.

Anon states:

There is SOME evidence, whether true or not, it's hard to tell. But it's evidence nonetheless. What evidence, you might ask? 1) Salman Pak training of hijackers supervised by Iraqi agents 2) Atta's meeting in Prague with Iraqi agents, 3) There is evidence that Saddam's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who helped make the bombs used in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, 4) evidence of Saddam's funding of Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel.

The Salman Pak canard appears to be based on fear, or Cheney’s 1% doctrine rather than any form of known logic. The germane question is: Even if Iraq were training terrorist, how does that translate into the involvement in 9/11? This is a full affront non sequitur. It amounts to an assertion that because Saddam is BAD, and because there is some form of terrorist camp, he MUST have been involved in 9/11. What about the possibility that it is a camp to train Iraqis to fight AGAINST terrorism? What about other possibilities? Well, it turns out as a matter of fact, (as concluded by the CIA) the camp was used to train Iraqis in anti-terrorist tactics. It was a bad assumption prior to the war, but it is downright blindness now. Poor reasoning does not evidence make; and refuted assumptions born out of the poor reasoning doesn’t even amount to an argument, much less evidence.

Second, he uses the supposed meeting of Atta with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague as evidence of Saddam’s involvement in 9/11. As in many instance leading up to the war, this was internally debunked prior to the war. The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, for example, informed the White House in ’02 that there was no evidence for the meeting. Czech intelligence had internally discredited the eyewitness source, and the CIA and the FBI could never find any evidence that Atta had ever left Virginia or had returned to the US. In fact, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III stated, "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." Perhaps the argument is because we cannot know that Atta absolutely did not leave the country, he must have been outside of the county, meeting with Iraqi intelligence agents. In other words, the lack of evidence is evidence that we can assume it happened. Or as Anon so wisely points out, it is SOME evidence. Yeah, like my flat porch is SOME evidence that the world is flat.

I am not going to spend the time explicating the final two statements, logic itself can easily fell them. Even if the Iraq did give money to Abdul Rahman Yasin in ‘93, how does this amount to evidence of involvement in 9/11? At best you can argue motive, but obviously involvement in one activity is not evidence of involvement in a completely unrelated activity. The only similarity in the case you can draw on is that both activities involved the WTC. While I am not going to argue the merits of the factual case (and I am immediately suspicious based on your previous spurious claims), the connection you draw, a geographical logic and inference to motive, hardly amounts to evidence of involvement in 9/11.

The last and only true assertion here unfortunately is also a non-sequitur: is evidence of sending money to suicide bombers in Palestine amount to evidence of involvement in 9/11? It is a terrible assumption. It falls apart under the weight of its own stereotypes, ignores the complex context of Palestine, and finally it falls victim to its own propaganda of “Israeli victims” and “Palestinian terrorists”.

As far as the WMD argument, where does one start with someone whose argument is equivalent to arguing there is evidence of a flat earth? The White House presented the case of 100% certainty of the existence of WMD in Iraq. Yet they had no idea where they were. “North, East, South, and West,” as Rumsfeld said--yeah that's evidence alright. Evidence they supplied for US consumption turned out to be out of context, incomplete, and contradictory to the full body of intelligence. Conclusions they drew as they tried to desperately piece together a justification for war, were refuted prior to the war…but the innuendos still surface. The very people that said Iraq had WMD (which the White House trumpeted far and wide) also said that weapons had been destroyed (this part was omitted from public discourse). There were claims that Iraq snuck all the WMD's through tunnels to Syria, but these claims have never been backed up by anything. Usually the argument points out the existence of a vast array of tunnels in Iraq, and these tunnels prove the prior existence of WMD's, because no one could locate their existence. Thus, the complete absence of proof of the existence of WMD in Iraq is ipso facto proof that Iraq really had WMD that must have been snuck through the tunnels into Syria.

To witness this tortured logic first hand, observe Anon’s recent claim below compared to the easily available facts that refute his contention. Why would Anon maintain his position in the face of a rebuttal from the very group he was relying on? Read the above tortured logic explanation above.

2004 quote from David Kay, former head of UN weapons search team in Iraq "We know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.”
This quote from David Kelly should be given a little context. David Kelly resigned his post in the Iraq Survey Group in January ’04. Since then some conclusions have developed by the very same group that can be found here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/.
Perhaps Anon should read conclusions of report posted after the resignation of his hero. “Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2005/isg-addendums_mar2....
Also check out the New York Times, April 30, 2005, ‘Puncturing Another Weapons Myth’: “The last refuge of those who continue to insist that Saddam Hussein must have had weapons of mass destruction was virtually eliminated by the chief weapons inspector this week. Not willing to accept the unpalatable truth that the search for WMD in Iraq had come up empty...” www.query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30813F63A550C738FDDAD0894DD....
In fact, - Not only does Syria not harbor WMD, but it was Syria that in April 2003 introduced a draft UN resolution aiming to ban them from the entire Middle East. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2955161.stm
Yes Anon lets look at all the evidence, not just single source evidence that has since been supplanted by the very group you are quoting.
The fact is, the only country in the Middle East to have real WMD’s (other than some Clorox and Toilet Bowl cleaners) is Israel. Perhaps Iraq secretly transferred its weapons to Israel so Israel can continue to bomb woman and children, I mean terrorists in Palestine that will cause world Oil to increase, thus increasing Saddam’s profit. Sounds like evidence to me. At least some evidence.
Usually, psychologically speaking, these claims are usually upheld by people who cannot let the WMD myth go and see reality for what it is. It is really quite sad, frankly. I had this discussion with a family member over Thanksgiving. She has intertwined her personal religious belief with Bush to such a degree, that she is willing to suspend her rational faculties in order to maintain her commitment to Bush.
The WMD argument and the 9/11 argument are founded on the similar pattern of reasoning: the same flimsy sourcing of fact from single sources that have long since been rebutted, the same reliance on poor logic, stereotypes, and simplistic divisions based on fear.

Note to Anon: Assertions are not evidence; false evidence is definitely not SOME evidence.

It is amazing that you so cavalierly dismiss the general critique of 9/11 myth, when the arguments and real evidence of malfeasance are from multiple sources and perspectives and fit into a larger array of behaviors and stated objectives, while the few flimsy single sourced pieces you throw together, so easily dismissed, are grandly upheld as evidence for Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

Some might say you have cognitive dissonance.

My question is: is your mother still a whore? I’m not saying she is a whore, I am just asking. Some say there seems to be some evidence based on what has been said. Maybe it is wrong, but it is still SOME evidence.

very well put atomicJoy.

Jon Stewart Explains the 'Cavuto Mark'

Jon Stewart, that keen observer of American journalistic practices, has revealed the use of a new kind of punctuation mark by Fox News -- the Cavuto -- which Stewart says is cleverly used to turn any statement, no matter how outrageous, into a simple, seemingly fair, question. With video.

Technically that's not really a question mark at the end of that. It's a similar punctuation symbol known as the 'the Cavuto.' It's named for the 'journalist' who pioneered its use," Stewart said.

"...Cavuto's not saying these things. He's just asking, like, 'Is your mother a whore?' What? I'm not saying she's a whore. I'm just wondering out loud if she is a whore. All I'm saying is that reasonable people who have banged your mother for money can disagree."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/150906Mark.htm

it sure would be great if...

Jon Stewart could figure out where he stands on 9/11 Truth. And then use his immense popularity to promote the need for a real investigation. I think it's time to start wondering about high profile people and whether they really don't get it, get it but are afraid of something, or get it and don't care to reveal the truth to their audiences.

Which one is it Jon?

Not to tread on sensitive ground (except yeah, to tread on sensitive ground) I remember looking through your book America and in the section where you mocked the five biggest lobbies in America, well, you didn't mention AIPAC. Sure, it could be because there's nothing funny about AIPAC, but is the AARP really that funny?

Now, I know what some people are thinking--whoa, RT, that's just one of the many shows that don't talk about 9/11 Truth--why are you singling it out? Is it because the host, head writer, and executive producer are all Jewish? Well, no. But... yes.

Sorry, but here's the deal. Jon Stewart very rightly went on Crossfire and made quite a name for himself (and likely sold a few books) by telling off Tucker Carlson and whichever faux-liberal was cohosting that night. He went on a national TV show and railed against the hosts and by extension their producers, etc. for not covering issues honestly, for spinning, for ignoring hard facts. It's THEIR job to inform, and his to entertain. Fair enough, but much too much is made of the fact that the Daily Show is a better news program than most news programs for him to hide behind that excuse. If your shtick is to mock the inept media, you are setting a standard that you should meet yourself.

So let's get back to the show and those who make it happen. Would I be wrong to be curious about the fact that the three people most responsible for the show's content are Jewish? Not just because they are Jewish but because they seem to implicitly deny that the official story of 9/11 is true and one can reasonably suspect that they might be unwilling to broach a topic that might cast Israel in a not so good light? In other words, not because they are Jewish per se but because they might be hardcore Zionists (which does correlate fairly strongly with being Jewish...)

Would it be wrong to wonder about other people who aside from their denial of 9/11 Truth also happen to be hardcore leftists and Jewish? Like Noam Chomsky? Or Norman Finkelstein? Could it be that as sickened as they are by 9/11 no matter who did it, they can't bring themselves to take a step that will put them not just on www.masada2000.org 's SHIT (self-hating and israel threatening) list of "Jewish traitors" but in quite possibly a whole new category? Check out the SHIT list and see how many Jewish people are there for raising questions about Israel's role in 9/11. My guess is you won't find a single one, or maybe one (and there are scores of people on that sick list.

Remember what happened to Yitzhak Rabin? An extremist Orthodox Jew killed him for offering to give back occupied territory to its rightful owners. Suddenly Islamofascists don't seem quite as, well, unique. When we fault muslim extremists rightly for their tactics at intimidation, should we not also consider that those tactics are used to great effect by other religious fanatics? Like, say, abortion clinic bombers? Or like the Jewish Defense League, a leader of which is serving 20 years for conspiring to bomb a mosque and the office of an Arab-American congressman?

See, we need not resort to accusing Jews of all being Mossad agents or shadowy conspirators to broaden the scope of our discussions about terrorism. We just need to be honest and fair and have the courage to work together to bring every relevant issue to the table, no matter how awkward or potentially divisive. If WE don't do it, then those who will will be those whose goal is not truth, justice, and reconciliation, but lies, hatred, suspicion, and division.

It's our choice.

Which one is it, Jon Stewart?

Are you unaware? Unconvinced? Unwilling to risk your life? It would really help if you would clarify this for your viewers.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

i agree with everything you

i agree with everything you said but i must point out the obvious. Stewart is a comedian first. going after AIPAC would get him nowhere, even though its the right thing to do. Stewart has probably diluted himself into believeing the official story of 9/11 anyway. hes not as far removed from the beltway bullshit as he likes to think he is. i dont look to the Daily Show or Jon Stewart for any real insight(though the fact that it gives more realistic insight than most MSM news is depressing), i just watch for some cheap laughs.still it was beautiful how he ripped Tucker.........

thanks

for the record I WANT to believe the best about him because of course the show is great and of course he was bang on to put Tucker in his place.

it depresses me to no end to see how pro-Israel fanatics convince so may otherwise wonderful people to turn a blind eye to reality. used to be we could look at Israel and say DAMN what is wrong with those people. And now, as Americans, we know.

Even the best souls can be led down an evil path by lies and threats of violence.

unfortunately the more I learn about Zionism and hardcore Talmudic Judaism the worse the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach gets.

I think it goes without saying that the biggest threat to anyone is not the people far away from them but those who are closest to them, who are ready and willing to do whatever it takes to gain from their loss, all the while pointing the finger at the innocent far away, saying "see them? they HATE you. and they will KILL you. unless you do as I say."

two words-- PROTECTION RACKET

never forget.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

hahaha, protection racket,

hahaha, protection racket, VERY well put. on a related note, have you seen Jimmy Carter lately or heard about his new book? the media is beating the hell out of him just for speaking realistically about Israel. the things he has been saying are really kind of tame too, like AIPAC has too much sway, our media is too biased in Israels favor etc. im surprised that the MSM is even booking him this time. believe me,i dont love Jimmy Carter, but goddamnit, good for him for using his name to speak a tiny bit of truth.

well, even the bad guys have some common sense

and don't think it's a good idea to be flirting with an all out race war, which is what this "clash of civilizations/new american century" crap is all about. Class war at its base with racial overtones to make it burn hotter. Kind of like Thermite/Thermate.

Believe me, the elites are not all bloodthirsty psychos. Or maybe they are, but some are more easily quenched...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

if there was any validity to

if there was any validity to the claims that the phantom WMD was shipped to Syria the corporate media would have been all over it a long time ago. just because Santorum and Hannity say something is true doesnt make it so. notice David Kay said components. i love how you clowns never provide full context in trying to justify an obviously illegal war.

oh, and also his qoute says

oh, and also his qoute says it is a major issue that needs to be resolved. it has been. Syria doesnt have Iraqs non-existent WMDs. dream on little soldier.

How do you know?

oh great one

There is also SOME evidence

That Israel was involved. And you can argue that it is false but you'd be wrong. I'm really getting sick of these disgusting attempts to throw blame around for 9/11 when no proper investigation has ever taken place into the man in the middle of it all LARRY SILVERSTEIN. Did HE have connections with Saddam? Nope. Did he have connections with high level Israelis? Yep. This persistence in ignoring the obvious is shameful and destructive to mankind, especially to Jews who are being lied to in order to keep them supporting the criminals claiming to be their defenders and protectors from the evil people in the world who hate them. Anyone who is NOT anti-semitic, or who DOESN'T wish ill to the world's Jeiwsh people's should stand up against the greatest threat to Jews in the world today--the Zionist state of Israel. That is a simple fact that for some reason people who love to point out how Bush is like Hitler can't seem to grasp.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Agreed.

Here’s an early scholarly analysis (published 2/3/03, six weeks BEFORE the invasion)
suggesting the real reasons behind the push for war in Iraq, with references to the famous
“Clean Break” document (written in 1996 by Perle, Feith, et al. as a policy paper for
newly-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (a close friend, then and now, of
Larry Silverstein*):

“For some time prior to September 11, 2001, neoconservatives had publicly advocated
an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities provided the pretext. . . .
In the following essay I attempt to flesh out that thesis and show the link between the war
position of the neoconservatives and the long-time strategy of the Israeli Right, if not of the
Israeli mainstream itself.”
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm

Don’t be put off by the title. As has been noted many times before in this forum, it is NOT
anti-Semitic to criticize Israel—or more specifically, the hawks who have taken over her
government, as the neocons have ours.

The dots will never get connected unless we can denounce all racism and bigotry and
vow to pursue the truth wherever it leads.
____________________________________________________________________
*http://tinyurl.com/yjmxux

Sophistry at its finest.

'Anonymous' sez (emphasis mine):

The article claims there is NO evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. That's simply not true. There is SOME evidence, whether true or not, it's hard to tell. But it's evidence nonetheless.

First of all, I believe that all the allegations you listed as 'evidence' have either been conclusively debunked (like the'Prague' incident) or are irrelevant (like the funding of Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel). Second, you're drawing an unnecessarily obtuse line between 'false evidence' and 'no evidence'. Evidence that is shown to be false isn't evidence at all, your histrionic sophistry notwithstanding.

How so debunked?

Show me how any of this has been debunked:

1. ...that Saddam had a significant track record of supporting terrorism attacks against Israel and the U.S.
2. ...that Saddam's speeches during the summer of 2001 were laced with threats against the U.S.
3. ...that the Czech government holds evidence on Mohammed Atta meeting in Prague with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an Iraqi government official.
4. ...that two Iraqi Military defectors, an unnamed former Lt. General and a Captain Sabah Khodada gave details of an Iraqi school at Salman Pak which includes training for the hijacking of passenger airliners.
5. that the existence of a Boeing 707 at Salman Pak has also been confirmed by UN. Inspectors.
6. ...concerning the 1993 bombing attack on WTC, that convicted ringleader, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, entered the United States with a false Iraqi passport. And that Yousef claimed the U.S. sanctions against Iraq were unfair.
7. ...that there are documents supporting the allegation that Saddam's regime gave funds and housing to WTC/93 bomb-maker, Abdul Rahman Yasin.

In summary, yes, Larry Silverstein had a motive for bringing down the towers, mostly greed. But Saddam also had a motive, mostly revenge. So I consider them both to be suspect. I'm not suggesting they worked in tandum. Perhaps, western and Israeli intelligence caught wind of what Saddam and bin Laden were up to, and then rogue elements of Mossad and CIA, along with Silverstein and Dov Zadheim, came up with a plan to scapegoat Saddam and bin Laden in a grander scheme that served Israeli and neo-con interests. You know, a combination of LIHOP and MIHOP.

There is so much conflicting evidence. Maybe that's part of the evil genius of 9/11. That all roads lead to everywhere and nowhere.

Is it *possible* to be this lazy???

Anonymous sez:

Show me how any of this has been debunked:

GLADLY.(clicky clicky)

Sure, I could restate it all over again, but atomicJoy spelled it all out quite succinctly, and if you can't be bothered to scroll down a bit and read another response to your original post before hounding me for substantiation, I seriously doubt you'll read it when I post it.

In short, I won't do your homework for you. Nice try, though.

SOME evidence=bad evidence=no evidence

While the connection between Iraq and 9/11 has been thoroughly debunked there are still some die-harders that refuse to, well, die. Let me give you a helping hand. It won’t be too difficult since I can count on even the White House as an ally. So I say to all the Faux News sycophants: turn off Bill O’Reilly for a moment and come with me to reality.

Anon’s (short for anonymous) brings out four common points as evidence of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11.

Anon states:

There is SOME evidence, whether true or not, it's hard to tell. But it's evidence nonetheless. What evidence, you might ask? 1) Salman Pak training of hijackers supervised by Iraqi agents 2) Atta's meeting in Prague with Iraqi agents, 3) There is evidence that Saddam's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who helped make the bombs used in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, 4) evidence of Saddam's funding of Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel.

The Salman Pak canard appears to be based on fear, or Cheney’s 1% doctrine rather than any form of known logic. The germane question is: Even if Iraq were training terrorist, how does that translate into the involvement in 9/11? This is a full affront non sequitur. It amounts to an assertion that because Saddam is BAD, and because there is some form of terrorist camp, he MUST have been involved in 9/11. What about the possibility that it is a camp to train Iraqis to fight AGAINST terrorism? What about other possibilities? Well, it turns out as a matter of fact, (as concluded by the CIA) the camp was used to train Iraqis in anti-terrorist tactics. It was a bad assumption prior to the war, but it is downright blindness now. Poor reasoning does not evidence make; and refuted assumptions born out of the poor reasoning doesn’t even amount to an argument, much less evidence.

Second, he uses the supposed meeting of Atta with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague as evidence of Saddam’s involvement in 9/11. As in many instance leading up to the war, this was internally debunked prior to the war. The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, for example, informed the White House in ’02 that there was no evidence for the meeting. Czech intelligence had internally discredited the eyewitness source, and the CIA and the FBI could never find any evidence that Atta had ever left Virginia or had returned to the US. In fact, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III stated, "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." Perhaps the argument is because we cannot know that Atta absolutely did not leave the country, he must have been outside of the county, meeting with Iraqi intelligence agents. In other words, the lack of evidence is evidence that we can assume it happened. Or as Anon so wisely points out, it is SOME evidence. Yeah, like my flat porch is SOME evidence that the world is flat.

I am not going to spend the time explicating the final two statements, logic can easily fell them. Even if the Iraq did give money to Abdul Rahman Yasin in ‘93, how does this amount to evidence of involvement in 9/11? At best you can argue motive, but obviously involvement in one activity is not evidence of involvement in a completely unrelated activity. The only similarity in the case you can draw on is that both activities involved the WTC. While I am not going to argue the merits of the factual case (and I am immediately suspicious based on your previous spurious claims), the connection you draw, a geographical logic and inference to motive, hardly amounts to evidence of involvement in 9/11.

The last and only true assertion here unfortunately is also a non-sequitur: is evidence of sending money to suicide bombers in Palestine amount to evidence of involvement in 9/11? It is a terrible assumption. It falls apart under the weight of its own stereotypes, ignores the complex context of Palestine, and finally it falls victim to its own propaganda of “Israeli victims” and “Palestinian terrorists”.

As far as the WMD argument, where does one start with someone whose argument is equivalent to arguing there is evidence of a flat earth? The White House presented the case of 100% certainty of the existence of WMD in Iraq. Yet they had no idea where they were. “North, East, South, and West,” as Rumsfeld said--yeah that's evidence alright. Evidence they supplied for US consumption turned out to be out of context, incomplete, and contradictory to the full body of intelligence. Conclusions they drew as they tried to desperately piece together a justification for war, were refuted prior to the war…but the innuendos still surface. The very people that said Iraq had WMD (which the White House trumpeted far and wide) also said that weapons had been destroyed (this part was omitted from public discourse). There were claims that Iraq snuck all the WMD's through tunnels to Syria, but these claims have never been backed up by anything. Usually the argument points out the existence of a vast array of tunnels in Iraq, and these tunnels prove the prior existence of WMD's, because no one could locate their existence. Thus, the complete absence of proof of the existence of WMD in Iraq is ipso facto proof that Iraq really had WMD that must have been snuck through the tunnels into Syria.

Usually, psychologically speaking, these claims are usually upheld by people who cannot let the WMD myth go and see reality for what it is. It is really quite sad, frankly. I had this discussion with a family member over Thanksgiving. She has intertwined her personal religious belief with Bush to such a degree, that she is willing to suspend her rational faculties in order to maintain her commitment to Bush.

The WMD argument and the 9/11 argument are founded on the similar pattern of reasoning: the same flimsy sourcing of fact from single sources that have long since been rebutted, the same reliance on poor logic, stereotypes, and simplistic divisions based on fear.

Note to Anon: Assertions are not evidence; false evidence is definitely not SOME evidence.

It is amazing that you so cavalierly dismiss the general critique of 9/11 myth, when the arguments and real evidence of malfeasance are from multiple sources and perspectives and fit into a larger array of behaviors and stated objectives, while the few flimsy single sourced pieces you throw together, so easily dismissed, are grandly upheld as evidence for Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

Some might say you have cognitive dissonance.

My question is: is your mother still a whore? I’m not saying she is a whore, I am just asking. Some say there seems to be some evidence based on what has been said. Maybe it is wrong, but is still SOME evidence.

Thanks

Thanks for calling my mother a whore. You know, that really adds vim and vigor to your argument.

I admit, there is no "smoking gun" to PROVE Saddam's funding for or intelligence support for the 2001 attack on the WTC. But there is SOME evidence that points in his direction. You havent debunked the evidence. You simply showed that there is no proof the dots all connect. I don't disagree with that.

For the record, I was opposed to the U.S. going to war in Iraq. It was a mistake from day one. So I'm not making my argument as an attempt to validate the war.

The reason I made the argument was simply to hold the initial article to the highest standards of truth seeking. Until it can be proven that Iraq WASNT involved in 9/11, we should not conclude that it wasn't.

I should add, there was evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing as well. So the track record of Saddam's involvement with anti-American terrorism is well-founded.

My mom, on the other hand, was a devout Catholic all her life. She is now passed away, bless her heart. She had no track record of lasciviousness all her life. I would never consider her as a suspect for whoredom.

Anonymous wants us to prove a negative....

"Until it can be proven that Iraq WASNT involved in 9/11, we should not conclude that it wasn't."

What? Huh?

Why not substitute "Anarctica" for "Iraq" in that sentence?

It's next to impossible to "prove" that it "wasn't" involved.....the above arguement is spurious on its face.

The current cabal used evidence that Sadaam had some involvement in unrelated crimes to then falsely link him to Al Qaeda, and then by extension, by implication, to 9/11. Case closed.

Give it up.

'Anonymous' sez:

Thanks for calling my mother a whore. You know, that really adds vim and vigor to your argument.

Thank you for validating his argument. atomicJoy never said she was...in fact, he went out of his way to assert that he wasn't saying that. Apparently, reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

But there is SOME evidence that points in his direction. You havent debunked the evidence. You simply showed that there is no proof the dots all connect. I don't disagree with that.

WRONG. That is exactly what atomicJoy did...he systematically demolished every one of your points. It's not that there's a lack of proof that the dots connect....its a lack of dots in the first place.

I should add, there was evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing as well. So the track record of Saddam's involvement with anti-American terrorism is well-founded.

If this 'evidence' is on the same standard as the rest of the 'evidence' you've cited here today, I'm not going to waste my time discussing it.

missing the point

Obviously you missed the rhetorical point. I am sure your mother was a fine, devout woman. I am not speaking literally of course, I am attempting to expose the circular reasoning via reductio ad absurdum that moves these types of debates. For all, the question was initially asked by John Stewart to expose journalistic nihilism.

You state:

"I admit, there is no "smoking gun" to PROVE Saddam's funding for or intelligence support for the 2001 attack on the WTC. But there is SOME evidence that points in his direction. You havent debunked the evidence. You simply showed that there is no proof the dots all connect. I don't disagree with that. "

Not only have you been thoroughly debunked, you have been unquestionably annhiliated. This is the very form of reasoning that allowed us to get into this war: epistemic obtuseness and systemic cultural nihilism that permanetly obfuscates political dialogue. You keep using the word evidence when I have adequately shown that there is no evidence, only conjecture. Not only is there no gun, there is no smoke.

What would be a debunking for you? You also have no proof that green speghetti monsters didn't instigate 9/11. Lack of proof is not evidence. Bad evidence is no longer evidence by virtue that it draws one to incorrect conclusions.

I have adequately shown for all to see: 1) unsound logic and assumptions, 2) rebutted facts by the very sources you site. There are only really two examples you site that could have to do w/911: the terrorist training camps and the meeting in Prague. The terrorist training camps were not used to train terrorist (Al' Qaida), they were utilized to train in anti-terrorist drills. There is no evidence to indicate that they had anything whatsoever to do w/9/11. Thus, the conclusion necessarily follows that it has no connection to 9/11. Therefore you are officially rebutted. Apart from this, you must rely on ignorance and imagination to suppose out of the infinte variety of possibilities there "might" have been secret training camp for the 9/11 hijackers. That is not evidence--not even an argument. It is just midnight wine and cheese conjecture. The other example, Prague shows there is no proof whatsoever. If you claim that Atta was out of country at this time to meet with Iraqi agents, it follows necessarily he had left the country. There is no evidence he left the country. None, zip, nada. Atta isn't exactly known for hiding his whereabouts either. Thus, it is easy to conclude that Atta did not meet with Iraqi agents, perhaps in Dick Vader's imagination.

Now to debunk your debunking

You didnt debunk nada. The PROOF you say debunks the Salman Pak connection as an anti-terrorism site instead of a terrorism site was simply the story the Iraqi regime claimed. That's like a counterfeiter claiming his printing press is used only for church bulletins. OF COURSE, the Iraqis are going to lie about Salman Pak. You didnt prove anything, Mr. Atomic Genius.

You're basically taking the word of the Iraqi regime over the evidence provided by the Marines when they captured Salman Pak, by the U.N. inspectors, by Iraqi defectors and by captured foreign fighters from Egypt and Sudan.

HERE IS THEIR EVIDENCE ON SALMAN PAK:

Two former Iraqi military officers told The New York Times and PBS's "Frontline" in the fall of 2001 that Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs were brought to Salman Pak to practice hijacking planes and trains, planting bombs and staging assassinations.

One of these officers, Captain Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, defected from Iraq in 1999 to Turkey. When he was debriefed, he described his training mission at Salman Pak, a military base about 21 miles from Baghdad that had been used for the testing of secret weapons, including chemical biological warfare agents, and paramilitary training for covert actions. Alami said he trained an elite commando team, Fedayeen Saddam, in airline hijacking and sabotage. Alami described a daily regimen of exercises on kidnapping, assassination, and — using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex — how to hijack a plane without weapons. He said that a separate group of non-Iraqis were being similarly trained by Saddam’s intelligence service, the mukhabarat. Asked about the plane by an interviewer for Front Line, he said “Yes, there’s a real whole 707 plane, a whole real plane, standing in the middle of the training area in this camp.”

U.N. inspectors looking for biological weapons reported seeing a plane there as well. Another part of the Salman Pak base was Saddam's main biological weapons center before the first Gulf War, the U.N. inspectors learned in the 1990s. U.N. inspectors said about 10 scientists and 100 other people worked on developing ways to deliver anthrax, ricin and other deadly substances over wide areas.

The Republican Guard 2nd Corps headquarters was also nearby where another camp trained young members of the Fedayeen Saddam militia in assassination, sabotage and espionage.

Marines raided the base in 2003. They found a passenger plane's fuselage laying in a large field.
Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said Marines raided the complex using information obtained from captured foreign fighters of various nations, including Egypt and Sudan. "The nature of the work being done by some of those people we captured, their inferences about the type of training they received, all these things give us the impression that there is terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak," Brooks said.

Now Saddam's folks say the site was only used for anti-terrorism drills. I guess you believe the word of Saddam Hussein, Atomic Genius.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

Haaaaaaaaaaa!!

Evidence still stands. Atta DID meet with Iraqi official

Rumsfeldt met with Saddam back in the 60's or 70's. Duh, we all knew that. What's that have to do with Salman Pak?

Maybe you're not old enough to remember. But we were at war with Saddam back in 1990 and 1991. And any relationship between U.S. intelligence and Iraqi intelligence was put on edge as a result of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Perhaps you dont remember, the U.S. pushed for economic sanctions on Iraq throughout the 90's. Our planes flew obiquitously over Iraq, and we continually pushed for U.N. inspectors to hunt throughout Iraq for WMD.

This was a source of constant irritation to Saddam. His anti-American speeches were filled with near-constant calls for jihad against America. In the midst of that, he trained and developed foreign fighters to conduct acts of terrorism, including hijacking.

The mark of Saddam's revenge was all over the 1993 bombing of the WTC, which was largely unsuccessful.

If this doesn't make Saddam a suspect for 9/11, than what does? In 2004, 65% of Americans AGREED with these suspicions. Maybe that number has declined some since then. But still, a majority of Americans believe Saddam was sponsoring the terrorism that happened on 9/11.

The air traffic controllers in Boston ALL agree there were Islamic terrorists on board the initial flight that hit the WTC. They heard them. They recorded them. This is the flight Atta was on. So there appears to at least have been an attempt to carry out an act of terror on 9/11.

Now as for Atta's famous trip to Prague to meet with Iraqi intelligence:

1) ...Czech newspapers in 2001 reported that Czech foreign minister Jan Kavan had briefed Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington about a trip Atta had taken to the Czech Republic in April. Kavan said that Czech intelligence had observed Mohamed Atta meeting in Prague with Iraqi Counsel Al-Ani. Since Ani worked as a case officer for Iraqi intelligence, the liaison implied a connection between the hijackers and Iraq.

2. After a knee-jerk denial of the meeting by other Czech officials, Stanislav Gross, the Minister of Interior of the Czech Republic, called a press conference to clarify what was known about the meeting. Gross was in a position to do so because the Czech counterintelligence service, the BIS, reported to him, not to Parliament or the President. He explained that Atta had been in the Czech Republic at least twice: on June 2, 2000 and in early April 2001. During his brief June visit, Gross said Atta was not observed by Czech intelligence, but in April, "We can confirm now that during his trip to the Czech Republic, he did have a contact with an officer of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani."

3. Since Gross had full access to the records of the BIS, which uses both electronic surveillance and visual surveillance, his confirmation sent shock waves around the world.

4. In Baghdad, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz denied that the meeting had taken place. In case he was proven wrong, however, he said: "Even if such an incident had taken place, it doesn't mean anything. Any diplomat in any mission might meet people in a restaurant here or there and talk to them, which is meaningless. If that person turned out to be something else, that doesn't mean he had a connection with what that person did later."

5. On October 27th, the New York Times published a story that provided a number of new details, such as a Czech member of parliament who said he “believed the meeting with Atta may have been captured by airport surveillance cameras.” It also reported that on Friday April 20th, Hynek Kmonicek, the deputy foreign minister of the Czech Republic, had al-Ani expelled from the Czech Republic for activities incompatible with his diplomatic status. Kmonicek, who was quoted in the Times story, explained Al-Ani’s expulsion was connected to his meeting with Atta. "It's not a common thing for an Iraqi diplomat to meet a student from a neighboring country.” Atta had been a student in Hamburg. If al-Ani’s expulsion proceeded from his meeting with Atta, then clearly Czech intelligence had identified Atta some four months before the September 11th attack.

6. By that time, the FBI had pieced together Atta’s movements from INS files, car rental records, vehicles, airlines reservations data and other documents. These files showed Atta’s entries into the US when he used his passport, when he rented and returned vehicles, and some flights he had booked. The story stated “Federal law-enforcement officials said the Prague meeting fits into Atta's itinerary this way: On April 4 he was in Virginia Beach. He flew to the Czech Republic on April 8 and met with the Iraqi intelligence officer, who was identified as Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. By April 11, Atta was back in Florida renting a car.”

7. Considering the "volumes of evidence" of pre-knowledge of 9/11 among intelligence circles, it's quite plausible that the Czechs passed on information about the al-Ani encounter, and the reasons for his expulsion, to other intelligence services prior to September 11th.
alim’s views.

8. In December, 2001, Czech newspapers reported that President Havel said “it was only 70 percent certain” that the identification of Atta was accurate. Havel, who was not privy to BIS reporting, subsequently explained the “70 percent” figure was his personal assessment based on his past experience.

9. On December 17th, Gross, in response to these questions, re-confirmed the meeting. The AP reported: “Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, responding to the report, said he stood by his original statement that Atta and Al-Ani met at least once in Prague and said it was based on a reputable account from BIS, the Czech counterintelligence agency.”

10. In 2002, Newsweek and the Washington Post declared the meeting a fictoid. Walter Pincus in the Washington Post stated “There is no evidence that the alleged leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, a finding that eliminates a once-suggested link between the terrorist attacks and the government of President Saddam Hussein, according to a senior administration official.”

Without giving a further source, Pincus explained that false reports that such a meeting had taken place were based not on BIS surveillance but a claim by “a Middle East informant” after September 11th that “he had seen the hijacker five months earlier meeting with al-Ani.” Pincus thus dates the identification as Atta to after the September 11th attack (which is inconsistent with the deputy foreign minister’s assertion that he had ordered al-Ani expelled in April 2001 because of his inappropriate contact with Atta.)

According to the anonymous “senior administration official,” Pincus writes “the Czechs said they were no longer certain that Atta was the person who met al-Ani.”

The same “senior administration official” was also quoted as saying that FBI and CIA analysts concluded that "there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S." at the time he was supposed to be in Prague. (Neither the FBI, the New York Times nor anyone else had claimed that there was evidence Atta had used his own passport to travel to the Czech Republic in April 2001. The assumption was that, if Atta was in Prague in April, he traveled there under a false identity.)

Pincus never identified the deep-throated “senior administration official,” nor specified which “Czechs,” according to this anonymous source, doubted the identification of Atta.

11. Czech intelligence responded. In, fact there never was a retraction, or even modification, from the relevant officials in and supervising the Czech intelligence service. On December 17th, 2001 Gabriela Bartikova, the spokeswomen for the Minister of the Interior, had said "Minister Gross had the information from BIS, and BIS guarantees the information, So we stick by that information." On May 3rd, 2002 referring to the Washington Post-Newsweek allegation, Interior Minister Stanislav Gross stated "I believe the counterintelligence services more than journalists. I draw on the Security Information Service [BIS] information and I see no reason why I should not believe it." He further explained that he had consulted with BIS chief Jiri Ruzek on May 2nd in order to find out whether the Czech intelligence service had any new information that would cast doubt on the meeting. "The answer was that they did not. Therefore, I consider the matter closed,” Gross concluded.

did you know that Atta was

did you know that Atta was placed in 2 different countries at one time? how do you explain that away? did you know Donald Rumsfeld was sent as a secret envoy by one of our worst presidents ever, Ronald Reagan, to Iraq to meet directly with Saddam Hussien to sell him chemical weapons? thats what the pic is of if you didnt click it. did you know virtually everything you typed has been debunked over and over? the corporate media would eat that shit up if there was anything to it. anything at all. there clearly isnt. do you have even a basic understanding of how the U.S. media works? i would guess no.........

I used to work in the media, so I know how it works.

I just showed you that Czech intelligence and Czech officials stand by their story that Atta met with the Iraqi official, who was then dismissed from the country. I just showed you the time line that allowed Atta to make the visit as put together by the FBI. Read my post.

The dispute of Atta's meeting with the Iraqi official was raised by Newsweek and the Washington Post, who never revealed their administrative source. So their "so-called" evidence is shaky at best.

I'm not sure what the motive would be for Newsweek and the Washington Post to do this. My guess is, since the establishment media must have known there were White House plans of invading Iraq, this "disinformation" was the beginning of their concerted effort to discourage such an invasion of Iraq.

The mantra of the liberal main stream media has consistently been: no evidence of WMD, no evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9/11, and therefore no reason to go to war with Iraq. This is just their disinformation campaign to discourage war. I've been opposed to the war since day one, but I still consider their disinformation campaign to be nothing but bull crap, not undisputable proof. THE TRUTH IS...Saddam's regime was cooking up all kinds of deadly chemicals and biological agents, and he was training terrorists and offering assistance, as is the case with Yousef (in 1993) and Atta (in 2001).

you just gave yourself away

you just gave yourself away as not knowing a damn thing about the media. you just trotted out the Rush Limbaugh myth. that the MSM is "liberal". you have just been caught, i cant believe you gave yourself away like that. pathetic. and you worked in the media? your lack of understanding of it and who owns it is truly astounding. its ok though ya little islamophobic coward, Saddam wont be able to get you now, sleep tight ya little bitch.

Did you know....?

Atta worked for OBL an was killed piloting a plane he and his buddies hijacked and crashed into a WTC tower?

No?

How curious. Have you been hiding in a cave in Afghanistan for the last 5 years?

did you know OBL was on the

did you know OBL was on the CIA payroll? did you know that the CIA NEVER fully loses contact with anyone it works with? no? not surprised.

you really should be ashamed

you really should be ashamed though. admitting that you "worked in the media", whatever that means, and that you fall for the grand myth of "the liberal media". HAHAHAHAHAHAH, that rightwing talking point will always work on some dolts i guess. because we all know that Newscorp(murdoch) and G.E.(defense contractor that owns NBC) as well as the other media conglomerates are run by hardcore liberals right? isnt Rupert Murdoch a big liberal? and Sumner Redstone(CBS owner), hes a big liberal right? nevermind that he gave %80 to republicans. other than Olbermann, name me just ONE strong voiced liberal in the MSM. just one. you cant. the corporate MSM is clearly a more hostile enviroment for true liberals, not the Alan Colmes and Juan WIllaims variety. you worked in the media, yet you think its liberal despite all evidence to the contrary. and again i say, i fully understand why you would want to remain anonymous after some bullshit like that.

...

"The air traffic controllers in Boston ALL agree there were Islamic terrorists on board the initial flight that hit the WTC. They heard them. They recorded them. This is the flight Atta was on. So there appears to at least have been an attempt to carry out an act of terror on 9/11."

Hmmm. "They heard them. They recorded them."

For the record, I'm agnostic regarding the presence of the alleged hijackers on the planes. This, however, is pretty weak. What did they hear? Some accented English? From this, they were able to pinpoint the original language of the speakers? Some Arabic? Do they speak Arabic well enough to recognize a native Arabic speaker?

I haven't seen it yet, but I hear in "Borat," Sacha Baron Cohen speaks Hebrew when his character is supposed to be speaking "Kazakh." Clearly, he is confident that an American audience won't be able to recognize it (although it must be particularly hilarious to Hebrew speakers.) I would say that supremely stressed ATC guys are even less likely to make a correct guess based on the tiny amounts of speech they heard.

Okay, well read this...

This is from Paul Thompson's timeline for Flight 11. An American Airlines flight service manager knew one of the flight attendents on the flight and he spoke with her for 12 minutes.

Hearing there is a problem with an American Airlines plane, Michael Woodward, an American Airlines flight service manager, goes to American’s gate area at the airport with a colleague, and realizes Flight 12 has not yet departed. He returns to the office to try to clarify the situation, then takes the phone and speaks to Sweeney himself. Because Woodward and Sweeney are friends, he does not have to verify the call is not a hoax. The call is not recorded, but Woodward takes detailed notes. According to the 9/11 Commission, the call between them lasts about 12 minutes, from 8:32 a.m. to 8:44 a.m. Accounts prior to the 9/11 Commission report spoke of one continuous call from around 8:20. [New York Observer, 2/11/2004; ABC News, 7/18/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 3] Sweeney calmly tells Woodward, “Listen, and listen to me very carefully. I’m on Flight 11. The airplane has been hijacked.” [ABC News, 7/18/2002] According to one account, she gives him the seat locations of three hijackers: 9D, 9G, and 10B. She says they are all of Middle Eastern descent, and one speaks English very well. [New York Observer, 2/11/2004] Another account states that she identifies four hijackers (but still not the five said to be on the plane), and notes that not all the seats she gave matched up with the seats assigned to the hijackers on their tickets. [ABC News, 7/18/2002; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001] She says she cannot contact the cockpit, and does not believe the pilots are flying the plane any longer. [New York Observer, 2/11/2004] According to a later Los Angeles Times report, “Even as she was relating details about the hijackers, the men were storming the front of the plane and ‘had just gained access to the cockpit,’” (Note that Sweeney witnesses the storming of the cockpit at least seven minutes after radio contact from Flight 11 stops and at least one of the hijackers begins taking control of the cockpit.) [Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001] She says the hijackers have stabbed the two first-class flight attendants, Barbara Arestegui and Karen Martin. She adds, “A hijacker cut the throat of a business-class passenger [later identified as Daniel Lewin], and he appears to be dead (see (Before 8:20 a.m.)).” She also says the hijackers have brought a bomb into the cockpit. Woodward asks Sweeney, “How do you know it’s a bomb?” She answers, “Because the hijackers showed me a bomb.” She describes its yellow and red wires."

I read it...

Well, Mr. Anonymous, I have read this page from Thompson's book more times than I can count, and what does it prove? Sweeney allegedly reported the hijackers came from seats 9D, 9G and 10B. Betty Ong also called from the same flight and reported the hijackers came from seats 2A, 2B and 9B. The difference between the two calls is that Ong's was recorded, while Sweeney's passed through the dubious auspices of the FBI before reaching us. I'll put my faith in Ong's call.

The seats 2A and 2B were registered to brothers Waleed and Wail Alshehri, who both turned up alive and well in Saudi Arabia. So we really have no idea who was actually sitting in those seats. The passenger in seat 9B was thirty-one year old Danny Lewin, an Israeli-American dual citizen who had been trained as a commando in the Israeli military. Ong reported that the passenger in 9B had shot the passenger in 10B, who would have been Satam al-Suqami. Mysteriously, however, the authorities have taken this evidence and decided that it was Suqami who shot Lewin. Then, they apparently decided that the official story shouldn't include guns, so they changed their story and decided that Suqami had stabbed Lewin. How's that for bizarre?

Sweeney, as well as numerous other callers from all four flights, did report that the hijackers were "Middle Eastern." That does not, however, mean "Arab." There is a Middle Eastern country that is not Arab or Muslim, and that also happens to have a long history of disguising themselves as Arabs while committing terrorist acts so as to frame their Arab enemy in the eyes of the world.

Perhaps you are familiar with this country, Mr. Anonymous? Perhaps you are a resident of this country?

No, I am not an Israeli

Nice guess. I'm a citizen of the U.S., concerned as much as anyone else, for truth and justice. Though I'm suspicious of Iraq's role, I'm equally suspicious of the role the Israeli community may have played in all this. The Silverstein "pull it" quote on WTC7 is compelling, as is the connection that Pentagon comptroller, Rabbi Dov Zadheim, had with the investigation of the 1993 bombing, which could have given him access to security information on the towers.

An attack on America by Saddam/bin Laden would have taken months to plan. If that plan were to be discovered (which seems to be the case with Czech intelligence having surveillance on Atta's meeting with the Iraqi official), then there was time for American/Israeli interests to come up with a counter plan. The counter plan could have included elements of conspiracy and treason, allowing the event to occur and enhancing it with the missile attack on the Pentagon.

Until we get a truly independent grand jury or Congressional investigation, we are all forced to speculate on what the master plan (or plans) were. I'm simply saying, at this phase in evidence-seeking, we can't leave Saddam completely out of the picture, as the original article suggests we can.

Speaking of evidence-seeking, do you have any proof that the Saddam Hussein on trial is the real Saddam? I think there is published material to suggest it is not him, but a complicit double. So where is the real Saddam? Could he be hanging out in some secure bunker in Syria with his weapons of mass destruction? Could he be waiting for his opportunity to regain his seat of power in Iraq?

Anon’s Nous Noose and Autolytic Deconstruction

Anon’s Nous Noose and Autolytic Deconstruction

Well now the fun begins.

We should all be thankful that Anon is so willing to be so honest in his desperate efforts to shore up two myths that helped support an ill-advised, illegal, and most importantly, unethical war. It is an object lesson in someone so willing to walk right off a cliff, and take one for the team. Perhaps Anon is a du jour liberal, celebrant of causes based on a tinged conscience, but with no epistemological foundation, he merely flounders in the wind when any form of ambiguity arises. There he disappears into a postmodern flatland; all evidence is equal, and all points of view merit equal weight of consideration.

At least we can be thankful that Anon apparently saw the light on his two other points about Iraq’s connection with 9/11 and absurd, a desperate hope beyond hope that those WMD’s really went to Syria. At least we haven’t heard anything yet, but I am sure he is scowering every right wing website to find anything that remotely insinuates WMD transfer to Syria.

What is needed now to extricate the remaining tumors is a political and philosophical biopsy followed by a 30cc dose of reality.

Anon begins his “debunking” by making the general remark that my claim that the Salman Pak training facility was an antiterrorist training facility is akin to taking a counterfeiter at his word. For a moment we will put aside Anon’s inaccurate reading of my post and examine the logical structure of Anon’s attempted refutation.

When we are trying to determine the guilt or innocence of an alleged counterfeiter can we legitimately claim that the counterfeiter’s assertions are ipso facto false because he is a counterfeiter, and a counterfeiter by definition is counterfeiting and not printing church bulletins? Can anyone see the problem with this assertion? It is a classic form of circular reasoning; where the conclusions are assumed in the premises. Even if the alleged counterfeiting is a no good shill, can we a priori assume he is a counterfeiter, and therefore every argument he makes in his defense is by definition wrong?

To whit, I have only one question: is your mother still a whore? Can we really trust an answer from a son of a whore?

In defense of his circularity, Anon states the following:

Two former Iraqi military officers told The New York Times and PBS's "Frontline" in the fall of 2001 that Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs were brought to Salman Pak to practice hijacking planes and trains, planting bombs and staging assassinations.
One of these officers, Captain Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, defected from Iraq in 1999 to Turkey. When he was debriefed, he described his training mission at Salman Pak, a military base about 21 miles from Baghdad that had been used for the testing of secret weapons, including chemical biological warfare agents, and paramilitary training for covert actions. Alami said he trained an elite commando team, Fedayeen Saddam, in airline hijacking and sabotage. Alami described a daily regimen of exercises on kidnapping, assassination, and — using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex — how to hijack a plane without weapons. He said that a separate group of non-Iraqis were being similarly trained by Saddam’s intelligence service, the mukhabarat. Asked about the plane by an interviewer for Front Line, he said “Yes, there’s a real whole 707 plane, a whole real plane, standing in the middle of the training area in this camp.”

A little context should bring to light the real nature of Anon’s “evidence”. First, the defectors that claimed that Salman Pak was a terrorist training facility connected to 9/11 were supplied to the US by the notoriously unreliable Chalabi of the INC (Iraqi National Congress). The DIA told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2006 that after Operation Desert Storm,

"fabricators and unestablished sources who reported hearsay or thirdhand information created a large volume of human intelligence reporting. This type of reporting surged after September 2001 and continued well after the capture of Salman Pak."
Exactly how accurate was the INC that supplied the human intel on the Salman Pak myth? Take a gander at this short list that exposes INC “accuracy”:

• Saddam collaborated for years with bin Laden and was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Intelligence officials said there is no evidence of operational ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, and no evidence of an Iraqi hand in the attacks.
• Iraq trained Islamic extremists in the same hijacking techniques used in the Sept. 11 strikes and prepared them for operations against Iraq's neighbors and possibly the United States. Two senior U.S. officials said that so far no evidence has been found to substantiate the charge.
• Iraq had mobile biological warfare facilities disguised as yogurt and milk trucks and hid banned weapons production and storage facilities beneath a hospital, fake lead-lined wells and Saddam's palaces. No such facilities or vehicles have been found so far.
• Iraq held 80 Kuwaitis captured in the 1991 Gulf War in a secret underground prison in 2000. No Kuwaiti prisoners have been found so far.
• Iraq could launch toxin-armed Scud missiles at Israel that could kill 100,000 people and was aggressively developing nuclear weapons. No Iraq Scud missiles have been found yet.
• Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Scott Speicher, missing since the 1991 Gulf war, was seen alive in Baghdad in 1998. The case remains unresolved, but the Navy last week said there was no evidence that Speicher was ever held in captivity. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm)

Anon proudly trumpets the Frontline report, but strangely omits the fact that Louis Wiles Jr., the executive editor of Frontline, later publicly disavowed the story. One of the military officers Anon mentions but does not quote directly, Jamal al-Ghurairy, an ex Iraqi lutenent general, was later delcared by Louis Wiles as being part of

“…an elaborate scam. The purported general had indeed met with American intelligence agents in Turkey, but unbeknownst to Hedges the agents had dismissed his claims out of hand. What the reporters also didn’t know, and what has never before been reported, is that it now appears that the man himself was a fake. According to an ex-INC official, the Ghurairy who met with the Times and PBS was actually a former Iraqi sergeant, then living in Turkey and known by the code name Abu Zainab. The real Lt. General Ghurairy, it seems, had never left Iraq.”

Tracked down in Iraq, Ghurairy gave a twenty minute interview:

During the 20-minute interview, in which he grew increasingly angry and suspicious, Ghurairy said he had been the commandant of the Suwara military base from 1993 to 2000 and had never worked at the Salman Pak military facility. He also said he had never spoken to U.S. intelligence agents or Western journalists: “I have never met these people. I have not left Iraq,” Ghurairy told Mother Jones, adding that he had not been aware that a man claiming to be him had been quoted in U.S. newspapers and on television....“I have never met these people!” he repeated with considerable agitation. “I have not left Iraq. The people who say this were trying to use my name to make war!” http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/heroes_in_error.html

Hmmm. An elaborate scam. Who would have thunk it, knowing what we know about Bushco’s moral rectitude. One can only wonder why Anon would overlook such stories.

Let’s administer a few more cc’s of reality:
Anon’s man of choice, Sabah Khalifa Khodada, was rejected “as unreliable by U.S. intelligence professionals. Nevertheless, the White House published their claims.”

How did the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence react to Anon’s “SOME” evidence?
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence established that both the CIA and the DIA concluded that there was no evidence to support these claims. A DIA analyst told the Committee, "The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa'ida." Knight Ridder reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel noted in November 2005 that "After the war, U.S. officials determined that a facility in Salman Pak was used to train Iraqi anti-terrorist commandos."(Seattle Times, 1 November 2005, p. A5).

What about established journalists?

Also Seymour Hersh noted that "Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war [that the camp was used for terrorist training]."(www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact])

Douglas MacCollam wrote in the July/August 2004 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review that "There still remain claims and counterclaims about what was going on at Salman Pak. But the consensus view now is that the camp was what Iraq told UN weapons inspectors it was — a counterterrorism training camp for army commandos."(www.cjr.org/issues/2004/4/mccollam-list.asp]

Other U.S. officials and journalists have concluded as well that Salman Pak was used to train foreign (non-Iraqi) fighters for counterterrorism.

Douglas Jehl of the "New York Times" reported that Charles A. Duelfer, chief weapons inspector in Iraq, reported that as recently as three months before the March 2003 invasion, "a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service known as M14, the directorate for special operations, oversaw a highly secretive enterprise known as the Challenge Project, involving explosives ... [that] trained Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemeni, Lebanese, Egyptian and Sudanese operatives in counterterrorism, explosives, marksmanship and foreign operations at its facilities at Salman Pak, near Baghdad." [link]

Perhaps if Anon had accurately read my original post where I stated the CIA concluded that Salman Pak was not a terrorist training camp, he would have come across this publicly verifiable information himself. Perhaps then he wouldn’t have made such a sophmoric logical fallacy in his example of the counterfeiter, because he would have been aware of what I have painstakingly reviewed here. Of course, there is much, much more information. And of course, his quote of Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks is accurate, and there were also the suspicions of Charles Duelfer, (who finally concluded the oposite…see above) then an UNSCOM weapons inspector that the Salman Pak was a terrorist training facility Suspicisons, I might add, that have been roundly dismissed after full analysis. Brig. Gen Vincent Brooks press statements were removed from the Iraq Survey Group by committee vote. (8-7)

Finally, Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq states:

“no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." DIA assessed that the foreigners were likely volunteers who traveled to Iraq in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began to fight overtly alongside Iraqi military forces...DIA said it has "no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa'ida with the former regime (p. 83 note, the page numbers in the report do not match the page numbers on the PDF file)
In June 2006, CIA told the Committee that: There was information developed after OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) that indicated terrorists were trained at Salman Pak; there was an apparent surge of such reporting. As with past information, however, the reporting is vague and difficult to substantiate. As was the case with the prewar reporting, the postwar sources provided few details, and it is difficult to conclude from their second-hand accounts whether Iraq was training al-Qa'ida members, as opposed to other foreign nationals. Postwar exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida linked individuals took place there, and we have no information from detainees on this issue….
A November 2003 assessment from DIA noted that postwar exploitation of the facility found it "devoid of valuable intelligence." The assessment added that CIA exploitation "found nothing of intelligence value remained and assessed that Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cleaned it out." The DIA assessment concluded that "we do not know whether ex-regime trained terrorists on the aircraft at Salman Pak. Intelligence in late April 2003 indicated the plane had been dismantled. DIA and CENTCOM asses the plane was sold for scrap

So much for the wine and cheese evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. In this case, more wine than cheese.

(the Prague answer will be coming soon, unless someone else would like the honors…)

Pfft, more drivel

Saddam and Osama were ardent enemies, both religeously and politically, not least because Saddam was a CIA puppet, documented facts, LOOK THEM UP!

2nd there is evidence he had some chemical and biological weapons, all of which were blown up endangering the lives of the troops with the ensuing clouds of toxic material. Why were they blown up? Because they were all supplied by the US & Britain in the 1st place. You want proof they admitted it, they have the receipts!

Oh and let's not forget the anthrax mailed to congress. Where was that sourced back to? Erm, was it Iraq or Afghanistan??? (All grades of this kind of material effectively have a laboratory fingerprint based on the refinement type)

CCC-Media - Read, Watch, Think, Decide!

Show "911-GOLD-CULT-IRAQ? HERES THE CONNECTION!" by MUZETTE (not verified)

I knew it

I knew Jon Gold was not on our side. Just like George Washington who was exposed yesterday.

Troll--from the timing of

Troll--from the timing of post, probably 'Ernie'(posted with \\\ in another comments forum something simular moments ago), even though missing trademark \\\\. That or there's a group of them working together at the same time.

Current plan seems to be acting like a truther and suggesting long time posters or even moderators are really moles.

Must be getting bored at Trolls-R-us, Inc.

David Swanson organizer or Camp Democracy in DC

said on Free Speech TV (FSTV) during the week of 9/11/06 how insane the 9/11 truth movement is. During this program FSTV did not interview anyone from the truth movement to get our side, and therefore the program was totally unbalanced. They were only able to close the program by saying "FSTV has researched both sides of the 9/11 issue and will get back to our viewers with more information in a few months". A few months? Try right now! Anyone who gets this channel keep an eye out for these developments.

Somebody needs to get through to this guy

He's not against us, he's just not yet with us. He would have helped us greatly on 9/11/06 in DC.

http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/598

http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/664

William Rodriguez

Apologies for being off topic, but just to let you guys know I attended a 911 Truth event in London last night, featuring William Rodriguez. It was well attended, and Rodriguez truly is an inspirational guy. I feel that his story could be used to bring a lot more people on board to the truth movement, as he comes across a highly credible witness to what happened that day. His account, though at times quite harrowing, is all anyone needs to hear to realise that the official story does not hold true, namely explosions in the sub level prior to aircraft hitting the towers.

Anyway, to all in the movement, keep up the good work.

Show "It only took close to five months" by Anonymous (not verified)

COMMONSENSE

I have been watching you Anonymous.... you must be the same Dismisser that visits many of the other blogs that I have visited..... Either that or you are all cutting and pasting from the same set of talking points..... how does this work exactly? Can you do this work from home?

They email you every day a new set of posts for you to distribute as needed? Hey, everybody needs a job....Right?

Next time you cut and paste....Drop the 'backslash' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

I'm trying to figure out why or how you would start all your posts with this symbol... I have seen this in other places..... and remarkably.... the message was exactly the same.

I have not been frequenting as many blogs that discuss this topic lately.... but I'm starting to see the patterns that I had seen before.

Why do you choose not to give yourself a name here? Perhaps you would like us to think tthat there are many Anonymous posters when there really just you.

A few years ago I kept running into this subject across the internet.... I ran into an especially knowledgeable Dismisser who was very persuasive and skilled at the art of war. Doing their best to win the minds of the people in the blog without actually winning the arguments. This person went by the handle "COMMONSENSE"

I wanted to know more about COMMONSENSE.... so I googled.... I found COMMONSENSE in several blogs.... and they were all 9/11 blogs.... I went to at least ten blogs and posted responses to this COMMONSENSE.... because I noticed that their detailed posts were exactly the same.... EXACTLY....

After getting in very heated debates on the subject in our original confrontation.... which lasted well over a week... in which I kicked some tail.... I went to these other blogs and posted a message to this blogger using my same name as before.... and this COMMONSENSE had no idea who I was.... and out of the twenty + blogs I only encountered the same COMMONSENSE once.... There were several people posting the exact same rebuttals using the exact same name.... I guess they didn't expect to run into the same guy in so many different places...... they were still far more savy and convincing than the shills they send our way. ANONYMOUS!?

They have had a playbook for combating this subject on the internet for alot longer than they are letting on. I think they send their big hitters to websites that are still somewhat in the dark.... I find the most resistance in the Physics and Science forums.... as well as the Republican forums.

If you investigate.... these heavy hitters seldom post about anything but 9/11.

And understand that if you start to defeat these shills in their forum for brainwashing.... you will be banned straight away.... and then the people in the forum always think that you were being owned.... and you ran away..... which also helps to firm their mind control.

It's sick

Quick question: Quick

Quick question:

Quick question:

Can you please provide one piece of evidence that proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. This evidence would need to be irrefutable, undeniable, undebunkable and factual. This evidence would prove beyond any reasonable person's doubt that 9/11 wasn't carried out by terrorist, but by the US Govt. and/or it's allies. This evidence would not be able to be misinterpreted nor misunderstood given its nature. It could be supported by eyewitnesses, but it's not necessary.

Since you've all been working diligently for a long time now...some of you for years...you must have amassed at least one piece of evidence that fits this criterion. I would love to know what that one piece might be.

I humbly and patiently await your reply.

Steve

Dude...

You have one thing supporting the official story. Cell phone calls. That's it. That's the one main thing I have trouble refuting, but even there, there are questions about the ever-changing story of which were airphone calls or which were celly calls. Maybe they were real, maybe they were made within drills, I don't know. Other than that, you have crash scenes that don't look like crash scenes anywhere else in history, Buildings like 7 falling down in beautifully symmetric fashion, wargames exercises, General Ahmad financing the lead guy, a military project that monitored a bunch of the guys and destroyed the equivalent of 1/4 of the records of Library of Congress, etc., etc. Let me ask you this...the coroner in Shanksville said he couldn't find traces of blood or bodies, yet you get this mint condition banfana in the Moussaoui trial. Does this pass the smell test?
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/111PA.jpg

Come on, the cell phone calls were total b.s.

"Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham, you believe me don't you?"

And Betty Ong's call is just as absurd. And the other experienced flight attendent's call who said, "I see buildings, I see water" like she'd never seen the Manhattan skyline before.

Ong-believable

Betty Ong's allegid phone call..... mace was supposedly sprayed in the plane... people were alledidly stabbed..... the plane is being hijacked as far as she can tell... and not one person id screaming or crying..... there is no hijacker barking instructiions....

Quiet as a church mouse.

What a joke.

Is this evidence?.... does it have to be?

All the calls were real, but they don't support official story..

Betty Ong's call is believeable, and it is real. We should study it and all the other calls to determine what actually happened on the planes. No one was screaming because she was in the back of the plane and many of the people back there had no idea the plane had been hijacked-- they assumed there was a medical emergency up front.

The cell calls are also all real but THEY DO NOT SUPPORT the official story. For example, Tom Burnett's four calls from FL93 reporting guns on board. Also Edward Felt's call from the same flight reporting an explosion and white smoke.

The phone calls verify that the planes were indeed hijacked by SOMEBODY... somebody who made every effort to come across as Arabs. That effort included the transmissions from the cockpit in broken English, like they were trying to come across as Arabs.

Please, you guys, read my analysis of the phone calls of 9/11. I believe I have made some important discoveries:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4190

Please take ten minutes of your time to read my essay, and leave some comments as well.

Here it is:

GO AWAY.

Find small animals to torture, play with matches, whack off, get a new job... And while you are engaged in your new adventures, try to come up with one piece of evidence that could stand up in a court of law implicating bin Laden in 9/11.

But really, just go away. The money is not well spent here.

Show "I love when twoofer act like" by Anonymous (not verified)

A suggestion:

Can the moderators remove the posting privileges of people who demonstrate that they are here to disrupt discussion in the most sophomoric, pathetic, and transparent manner? Or maybe come up with a label for their posts that identify them?

This is NOT to suggest censorship of differing points of view among people still actively questioning the OT. But there are a couple of posters who have only two messages: you crazies have no evidence/show me the evidence; and conspiracy theorist insults.

I would fully expect any site to do the same to me if I were constantly disrupting the very premise of the site. Just because it's online, do communities have to tolerate behavior that would be absolutely unacceptable in an in-person meeting or discussion? I think I know what Miss Manners would say.

(Although I have to admit, Anon, that it is mildly instructive watching you degenerate to the level of the post above.)

Show "Hey LEH, Speaking of" by Anonymous (not verified)

LEH,

Methinks you give 'Anonymous' too much credit.

Every time 'Anonymous' makes one of his abortive attempts at character assassination, it serves only to show his true character.

Removing 'Anonymous''s posting privileges will only grant him the validation he obviously desires so desperately. I, for one, don't care to give him that.

So in conclusion, let him rant. Let him be as infantile as he wants. Clumsy shills like him can only help the 9/11 Truth movement.

these users are anonymous

these users are anonymous users who typically use Verizon internet services.. i assume that they are on dialup, or use some other sort of software, as their IP address changes frequently. us banning their IP address is a futile excercise. the only solution would be to remove anonymous commenting abilities, or to allow the community to do the moderation by voting down such posts - which is the current solution.

we can't be here 24/7 to moderate against these folks unlike other large blogs which make large amounts of cash and allow their moderators to do the blog as a living. this site is the opposite in that we take in no money, and we can only work on the site in our spare time, hence no 24/7 moderation.

verizon dsl also give the

verizon dsl also give the user a new ip address, all you have to do is power cycle the dsl modem and you obtain a new ip...  rarely is it the same ip as before...

Here is a good solution

If you would honbestly and forthrightly provide all the sides to the debate you would not have to be constantly debunked for lying.

It is very simple.

The concept of providing \"alternative news\" just gives you away as a political interest group and you bias shows.

Lies always attract the truth whether you like it or not.

Just look at what happened to Holocaust Deniers. That is your fate, dz, unless you stop lying about 9/11.

Simple, no?

Here's your labeling:

Compulsive \\\\\\\ =Ernie, used to follow Jon Gold around. Predictable unconstructive trollishness, REALLY DOESN'T LIKE BEING CALLED 'ERNIE'. Hint, hint.

'Bert': inconclusive distinguishing features, but followed Chris around like love sick puppy trying to mate his leg. Cass. has good luck IDing 'Bert'.

Grover = new designation for troll claiming "they were a truther but now see the light". Is this warm and cuddly, or what?

The object of naming these anonymous trolls is not just for our amusment-chuckle- but a) to identify them so the unwary aren't sucked into a disfunctional 'debate' , b) a direct punishment for confusing this forum by not picking a name and c) by calling up Jim Henson creations, they are given the level of serious reguard they deserve.

The other excellent tool the moderators have come up with is comment compression. If you can't read it, it's probably not worth responding to.

So do your duty, vote the trolls into hiding, and give dz a hand for making that possible.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Many thanks, Jenny! I'll

Many thanks, Jenny! I'll make a handy dandy chart with Henson versions of hijacker passport photos.

I now understand the reasons that those people can't be contained. Thanks to all for the explanations and dedication!

I look forward to seeing

I look forward to seeing your chart.

Thanks for the ROFLMAO, Jenny

I just ignore the trolls once they have outted themselves.

If we ever meet I hope you will let me buy you a drink for your post(s).

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

How very sweet. Well, if

How very sweet. Well, if you find yourself in Portland, I haunt Powell's Books semi regularly--as time allows.

Keep well, chum.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

evidence

-If you read and comprehend
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/seismic-proof-911-was-an-inside-job
you will see a pattern that shows how the trickery begins and creates a dichotomy of opinion. Those who believe in the lie need only understand the original trickery that caused them to believe and they will become disabused. In the case above it is the NIST fiddling of the impact times to include a 'TV time' (which is completely spurious and unreal) of the impacts, and that the commission based their report on those fake times.
-Minetta's testimony at the Commission is proof inferred that Cheney had intent to let a flying object crash into the pentagon. There is no reasonable excuse for this. It was although sandboxed and 'need to know', quite blatant.
-The wargames are a dead give away, im sorry if you dont know that wargames have been used to sandbox real world 'high fidelity' events before, you need to read Tarpley. Unprecedented country wide wargames scheduled for that day bled into hijacked planes etc. .
-Put Options on airline stocks 11 times greater than usual.
-Pyroclastic Flows expand at a rate requiring more than 3 times the energy/heat of the falling buildings.
-Atta and crew trained at flight schools in the USA, flight inspectors said they were terrible cessna pilots - these guys are all such cia patsies, not following muslim custom, drinking, partying. Flying 757s is 10 times harder, 100 times under duress. But the planes execute masterful turns and hit targets successfully. - drink that koolaid?
It goes on and on and on, until you get a nice clear picture that finally makes much better sense: INSIDE JOB.

So 'Ernie's been a bad boy,

So 'Ernie's been a bad boy, has he?

Course, we suspected this. Can I ask which other blogs you suspect 'Ernie's hit?

I was going to be annoyed with you for giving him pointers on dropping the '\'; better the troll you know and can identify. But from the sounds of it he's so busy he lost track of where he's been and who he's 'debated'.

That was VERY funny!

When do you get to the part about providing evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or do we have to wait another five (5) years?

In other words, when will you bozos start engaging your brains and answer our questions about your assertions?

Damn anon..what are you?

You go on like your COINTELPRO...or that you are Mancows brother..I'm leaning toward Mancows brother

"must read" AJ interview

Why is anyone attacking Fetzer?

Over the past 10 days this place has gone from being a fairly decent place to discuss our opinions, to the filthiest piece of garbage I've ever seen. Literally, it's dog-eat-dog, perps-eat-pervs. The whole thing is beginning to reek of disinfo.

So, what's up with all of that?

Show "Your movement is eating" by Anonymous (not verified)

How?

Is the movement caving in?

I do not see any of that - I see it picking up speed....

O'Reilley

Is anyone a member at this site that can come and finish this argument.... this was smacked down but this guy tried to come in and steal the last word

http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/07/21/fox-commentator-threatens-911-...

You go ahead and read this blog and any other breeching this subject matter and you see who's winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans.... the opposition are all people who think that we are Liberals who are out for Bush's head.... they are seldom people who have looked at the evidence we present... If they have looked at any evidence it is that of the government rags like Popular Mechanics

Obviously you miss my point!

What I'm saying is why the hell are the moderators even letting these people in here? This entire thread is filled with personal attacks, back-handed smacks, and more nonesence than we have endured throughout the past 5 years.

The movement is growing to be sure. The facts have been repeated ad naseum, and there is no reason for any of those who run the prominent sites to be fighting within. For instance, I think we have good reason to mistrust Eric H, following the interviews he did with Statmiller and Piper, but I don't really go around trying to debase him. The same is true for several other SF participants, who were said to be mostly concerned with debunking good research. The bottom line: "Prove your real intentions!" -That's all it really takes, and I feel Jim Hoffman makes the perfect case in point, because he's truly accountable and therefore fully entitled to his opinion. -No 'judgement' (or +/- scoring) required from my end.

It's also understandable that most of these newbies can't imagine the thousands of e'mails, phone conversations and hours we've spent with Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, John Kaminski, Greg Syzamanski, Jim Fetzer, et. all.. Anyone who's shown that degree of commitment deserves our respect, I don't care what they think of space-beams, the Hollowcost, or even where they get their paychecks.

Cut the disingenuine assertions. It's time to take action towards voicing our demand for prosecutions! -full stop!-

It doesn't matter where they get their paychecks?

Let me get this straight - you're saying that if someone is a paid disinfo agent it's A OK, as long as they're "committed"? What are you on? Did I misunderstand you?

"Timeline" was no better source than Unger

Right, I don't care if Paul Thompson saw Mohammad Atta's touche hit the glass from his offices at the Pentagon, or if he gets his checks directly from 'Sir' Giuliani's "office party kitty," the truth is the truth, and those who know some know PLENTY! Even THEY could join this triumphant chorous of anoynomous punsters, because this ain't about how any of us 'feel.'!!!

This choice tid-bit I did not know:

> {The Silverstein "pull it" quote on WTC7 is compelling,} AS IS THE CONNECTION that Pentagon comptroller, Rabbi Dov Zadheim, had with the investigation of the 1993 bombing, which could have given him access to security information on the towers.

Security Information? How about "President of the Central wrap-party-planning sub-committee?" I swear they Anthrax 'scare' was about one thing only: You talk about what you saw at the Pentagon, and guess what happens to your family! No wonder Rumsfeld was given the role of Master of the cookie-jar after mentioning the missing $3T. Pentagon funds. Shit, if they can't buy 1/2 the votes in America with that kind of coin, what's a dollar worth anyway?

can't say I follow you

Where are you quoting the Zakheim bit from?

Old clip...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/12.html#a5835
___________________________________

"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."