Open Thread

What's happenin'?

A Pakistani Militant Group...

Responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been, "secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005."

They also reported that this was on, "the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February."

When Cheney went on his trip to see Musharraf, it was reported that deputy director of the CIA, "Mr Kappes also met members of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and operatives from the CIA's Islamabad station to discuss co-ordinating efforts to track bin Laden."

Do you think it's possible they were also talking about this?

Does this prove a working relationship between the Bush Administration, the ISI, and "terrorists?"

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

yep, i heard about that

yep, i heard about that yesterday. same old song and dance. and yes, this proves a working relationship between Bush, the ISI and "terrorists". ABC News implied that this is exactly what they were talking about at the meeting. they showed a picture of Cheney and Musharraf shaking hands after their meeting while the voiceover talked about the covert US support for this group(from Nightline and World News Tonight).

can someone clarify what this has to do with 9/11?

There is no credible evidence linking Pakistan to the events of 9/11.


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


Red Herring

Agreed. The ISI connection has always struck me as incredibly flimsy. A newspaper report from Pakistan's arch-enemy? And why would the head of an intelligence service wire a hundred grand to some punk coke-head? Surely he would have someone else wire the money for him, or simply get a courier to deliver the money in cash. You don't get to be the head of an intelligence agency by being an idiot.

What strikes me about the alleged ISI angle is that it is almost always used in the following manner: "...wired 100,000 to HEAD HIJACKER M. Atta". The word "alleged" never appears, even though there is no evidence that M. Atta had anything to do with 911. The ISI connection is a clever way of drawing attention away from the far more likely subcontractor: the Mossad. It keeps our attention squarely focussed on the evil Muslims while buttressing the absurd account of the "hijackers". It's also a dead end from an evidentiary point of view; there's simply no way of proving that the ISI is a wholly owned CIA subsidiary, even if it likely is.

My advice is to forget the ISI angle and focus on the more compelling evidence: WTC7, free fall, molten metal, war games, stand-down etc.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

My advice...

Is to point out credible incriminating evidence that the 9/11 Commission left out of its' report, lied about within its' report, or distorted within its' report.. Especially credible incriminating evidence that was put forth as a question by the family members that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

22) On the issue of state sponsored terrorism:

  • Why did Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan's secret service, the (ISI) order Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta?
  • What was Mahmood Ahmed's relationship with Al Qaeda?
  • Where did the money come from?
  • Did officials in Pakistan know in advance about the terrorist attack?
  • On September 11 th , Mahmood Ahmed had a breakfast meeting in Washington, D.C., with House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham. What were they discussing?

According to the Washington Times, "On May 15, 2003, a group of 9/11 victims' relatives met with the commission co-chairman Thomas Kean and other senior staff and submitted a list of questions, which included a mention of Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed. On June 17, 2004, the New York Times reported that Lorie Van Auken, whose husband died in the World Trade Center, was "irate" that the June 16 commission narrative of the 9/11 attacks did not even mention the allegation about Ahmed's role in the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta. Clearly, the ISI link is no mere conspiracy theory."

So as you can see... when Thomas Kean was confronted by Alex Jones' team, and said, "I'm not aware of the $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammad Atta", he was LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.

Remember, part of the 9/11 Commission's mandate was to give a "FULL AND COMPLETE ACCOUNTING" of the attacks of 9/11.

If something is obviously left out of the report, then we need to ask why, and we need to point it out at every opportunity to show how "credible" the 9/11 Commission's Report actually is.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

KSM and Pakistan

Khalid Sheikh Mohommed was able to operate freety in Pakistan. And what about ISI Director LT. General Mahmood Ahmed who was in washington on 9/11 eating with our U.S. reprentatives.

I am not saying I know for sure but would you guys agree it is some pretty serious evidence. several media oulets reported this Ahmed ordered the wire of $100,000 to Atta.

what do you guys think? W. Bush said it like this "You're either with us or against us." Pretty fishy.




is a new video which will certainly get you fired up for action

The Third Stage

third stage

Third Stage is a great 20+ minute piece, it was very emotional...motivated me to make my own......

Full length

Special guests on the Alex Jones show tomorrow!

and the special guests would

and the special guests would be who?


Me... and maybe Danse, too.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

congrats! keep up the good

congrats! keep up the good work man.

Add your town to the April 11 actions

Add your town to the April 11 actions

Any NJ truthers in the house?

"New JERSEY 9/11Truth movement

There is an emerging 9/11 Truth movement building in New Jersey, a very nice and smart young man Glen is starting to organize the state. He could use some support and help in New Jersey. If you are from New Jersey and want to help or join the movement , please contact Glen at: or or the other NJ911Truth movement group at or

He is also organizing a street action on the 11th in New Jersey.

Wednesday, the Eleventh of April, 2007 in Jersey City, NJ: 4/11 Day of Action
NJ - Jersey City
12-1 at Journal Square
1-2 at Grove Street

Any San Jose truthers in the house?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

to Danse, re: "Evil muslims"

yes, the "evil muslims" idea is alive and well.
Just heard Tucker Carlson on MSNBC today, saying something like; we don't like Syria and Iran or any other evil people in the world.
Yes, he got away with calling the Syrian and Iranian people evil. Now, that's what I call hate speach.

maybe not 9/11 but it is

maybe not 9/11 but it is credible evidence of the Bush administration using "terrorist" groups to do their bidding. ive gone on record on this site many times saying that i think Pakistan will be used as the fall guy when 9/11 truth cant be ignored or ridiculed any longer. that doesnt mean we should ignore Pakistan though.

no question we shouldn't ignore them!

Of course the ISI is up to no good and colludes with the CIA and US military, but that does not necessarily mean they were in on 9/11. I am by no means trying to say Pakistan is a "good guy", or that they had NOTHING to do with 9/11. I'm saying that from the evidence available it's clear that some are trying to set them up as a fall guy, as you say--expendable and Islamic.


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


no doubt man, its very clear

no doubt man, its very clear to me to. i would love to see the corrupt ISI brought down but they CANT be the only ones. great response to Josh Holland by the way.


If the ISI was not involved.... as well as many other people who may not have had direct ties..... think about how our government may have made it look as if they were in order to keep them quiet..... in order to make them support the line.

They may not be involved but if they do not do their part to keep the line going then it will be their arse in the sling as well.

"We need you to send money to this part of a drill.... to see if our guys can catch it."

"And we can see if our guys catch it too."


"No problem. This should be a good drill."

9/11/01 9:15 EST

"Oh shit!" WTF is going on over there?"

"Well ISI..... It looks like you are our bitch."

and the game goes on
Together in Truth!

exactly--all clandestine "intelligence" agencies

are equally bad--no accountability means no scruples means EASY to corrupt. we'll end them all before we're done. bastards.


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


Blue Macrel

Pakistani intelligence is central in the bush-blair war on terror.

I was once having a debate about how it was impossible for the west or "westeners" to penetrate such a different culture as Islam.
ISI is how the "penetration" works.

ISI recruits, profiles, funds and trains "terrorists"

Bush-Blair foreign policy is designed to inflame and radicalise Islam so they can continue their 45 years war. (As long as the oil lasts?)
Inflamed Muslims are recruited at "radical" Mosques. Potential candidates for terror operations are identified and profiled
and sent to Pakistan for further profiling/training.

I just searched "ISI 911" here's a small sample of what turned up. Do some reading,12271,1266520,00.html

Mossad are not excluded its not an "Or" situation but an "And" situation
The Israeli ruling elite also need their own terror threat in order to control their own population.
The Israeli version paints their enemies as people who want to finish the job started in the holocaust
and not as people who want their land back. This is where the term "islamo-fascist" comes from.

Just remember the oil and look at the roles of the countries surrounding that oil.

The global ruling elite are indeed global National borders are there to
divide Humanity up so that one side always has someone to feel threatened by.
Classic divide and rule.

An F-16 is a useless piece of scrap without oil. The American armed forces are just a bunch of guys with guns without oil.


"There is no credible evidence linking Pakistan to the events of 9/11."

There is no credible evidence linking Larry Silverstein to the events of 9/11, yet you promote that at every opportunity. There is no credible evidence linking the Bush Administration to a "Controlled Demolition" at the World Trade Center, yet, you promote that as the "smoking gun" of 9/11, and denounce any other line of research.

It seems that you don't understand the word "credible".

Incidentally, is this an open thread or isn't it? I think talking about how the Administration works with "terrorists" is EXTREMELY relevant to the events of 9/11.

And I think it's hysterical that my original post linking the Bush Administration to terrorism gets voted down. On a 9/11 Truth site no less.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

you have a soft spot for billionaires?

No evidence? Your 47 story building collapses and there is no evidence that you may have commited a crime? Especially when you don't come out and say--HEY! Who rigged my building for demolition? Yeah Jon, nice try.

And I've never said there was any evidence linking Bush to the demolition of the twin towers--that would also be on Silverstein. Do you honestly believe that when property is destroyed under extremely suspicious circumstances the suspicion doesn't naturally fall on the beneficiary of the insurance covering said property? You don't have to be a lawyer to know that.

Now you can defend this shady billionaire all you want, but I personally think he should be put in jail awaiting trial for his clear involvement in the deaths of 3000 people, if only by being a negligent landlord. My God, if my landlady dropped the house on us (after conveniently going to the dermatologist) and wanted to cash in her insurance I would hope that someone would have the sense to ask her how the house managed to collapse so neatly onto me.

Am I wrong? Let the voting begin!


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



I thought WTC7 was the smoking gun of 9/11, and now you're saying you "never said there was any evidence linking Bush to the demolition of the twin towers - that would also be on Silverstein." I don't have a soft spot for billionaires. Apparently you have a soft spot for the Bush Administration.

I, however, don't. And Larry may have had inside knowledge of the upcoming demolition of his building, prompting him to take out the insurance, but that doesn't mean he had anything to do with the demolition of it.

You always make a stink about stating that the hijackers were "alleged". Well, then Larry Silverstein should be an "alleged" culprit behind the destruction of the World Trade Center.

I still say the quickest path to 9/11 Truth is right through the White House.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


How were the reports of General Ahmed ordered the transfer of $100,000 to Atta thru Saeed Sheikh and was in Washington from Sept. 4th until days after the 1tth meeting with FBI and CIA not credible?

This was reported by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

David Ray Griffin's Omissions and DIstortions, Chapter 9, is dedicated to the Pakistani connection. He lists seven types of evidnece for ISI involvement in the attacks of 9/11.


According to certain members of this movement, there is no evidence that there were any hijackers that morning, therefore, a wire transfer from Pakistan's intelligence service to an alleged hijacker is irrelevant.

Also, you can't trust a report that comes out of India because India and Pakistan are enemies.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

whoa! the WSJ and NYT reported it?

I guess it MUST be true, because they NEVER purposely report BS. I mean, except when they do--but they always apologize later when they're caught! just ask Judith Miller.


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


Is everyone a dis-info agent?

Or just the ones that you think are?

What does it take to be credible? Is it what's deemed credible by you or me? Alex Jones?

How about the story of Randy Glass? The angle that 9/11 Press For Truth takes on the Pakistani connection?

Why would the WSJ and NYT both report this "bs", expecially when it was days after the attacks and everything was still fresh? What would they have to gain by deliberately reporting "bs"?

Why do you poo-poo the Pakanstani ISI connectIon?

I bet DRG and Paul Thompon would both vehemently agree that Pakistan played an integral role.

General Ahmed stepped down from his position on Oct. 8th, 2001.

Why would our gov't have "let Al-Queda go" by not blocking them or stopping them from supposedly entering Pakistan from Afghanistan immediately after 9/11?

I don't find Alex Jones particularly credible no

The two most credible people in my view are DRG and Kevin Ryan. I operate from the premise that the 9/11 truth movement was infiltrated from day one if not before--why leave it to chance? Controlled demolition, controlled opposition--they thrive on controlling things, thinking they can control the very reality we inhabit.

It's very easy to pretend to be a truther when you're in on the conspiracy--you can feed genuine info to establish cred as a hard hitting investigator and then lead people into traps a la Fetzer. One method that I think is used often is the "too good to be true" story that is put out so that we all email it around, and then when it turns out to be BS we are made to look foolish.

To pretend that I think everyone is disinfo is nonsense. I think most of the regular posters on this site are the genuine article. If you need to ask who the exceptions are then you need to hang out and observe, just like we do, and come to your own conclusions. It's not about the who, it's about the what is said--and once someone is caught red handed being dishonest they're out--one strike is all you need to suss out a scoundrel.


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



Saying Alex Jones is not very credible...that's thin ice your skating on it, especially in this forum. He did predict the attacks, in fact, and is the self-proclaimed "father of the 9/11 Truth Movement".

I've been around here for about 8 months or so. My original point was that there is, in fact, credible evidence linking Pakistan to 9/11. Like I said, DRG devoted an entire chapter to this.

What makes you think WSJ and NYT would write about General Ahmed/Atta/money transfer if they didn't think it was true, especailly in the days after 9/11?

I totally agree that it seems somewhat impossible these days to decipher what is credible and what isn't. But that story has been echoed by others and stressed by people in the movement like your boy DRG (I love that guy too, by the way) and Paul Thompson and 9/11 Press For Truth and Michael Ruppert and Peter Dale Scott and Michel Chossudovsky.

I don't think it's a "Red Herring" by any means or that it 'should be ignored'.

Not really

There are many people here who keep a large salt shaker next to the computer monitor labeled "Alex Jones." Predicting the attacks -- that could go either way in terms of enhancing or detracting from perceived Trutherness, once you internalize the "disinfo= 90% good info + 10% bad info that can really screw you up" formula. In general, I have an okay feeling about him these days -- but it's a FEELING only.

You should check out some old threads, because the significance of the money transfer has been extensively discussed and chances are no one wants to rehash the whole thing in this thread. Here's a clue: Why do some of us refer to the country in question as "Patsystan" and why do others have temper tantrums when we do?

Show "Because..." by Jon Gold

That's right.

We observe the true faith and will smite the infidels.

Actually, some of us like to call it the "Path of Controlled Demolition."

Until the summit of enlightenment is reached I and all beings go for refuge to the sources of true refuge. I will now practice my devotion to basic physics in order to release all beings from patsy-centered delusion and establish them in lasting 9/11 Truth. Om mani padme hum.

Show "So you're trying to say..." by Jon Gold

Jon, you also take shots.

You like to opine as to who is a "true truther" and you like to call people who are good faith members of this forum with whom you disagree "trolls." Okay? Let's not have to do the pot-kettle-black thing.

When someone...

Points out credible information that says the Bush Administration influences terrorists through the ISI, on a 9/11 Truth site, then it should not be voted down, and should not get an inflaming post like, "There is no credible evidence linking Pakistan to the events of 9/11." That sets the tone for the entire thread, as you can obviously see.

When someone acts "trollish", I will call them as such. Inflaming arguments is acting "trollish".

As you already pointed out, this has been discussed over and over again in "old threads", and there's really no need to keep bringing it up. Unless the purpose of doing so is to disrupt the site.

Geez, at least in regards to Controlled Demolition, I refer people to Steven Jones. I don't go into every CD thread (AND BELIEVE ME, THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM), and say, "There is no credible evidence of Controlled Demolition."

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

if that's what you think you should

and you would get voted down. i don't say Patsystan is a red herring to annoy you, but it seems that you see every down vote against you as some crime, as if you never down voted anyone yourself. seems like if anyone disagrees with you, they are being unfair, but when you disagree with someone it's because you're right. if more people find controlled demolition important than do the Patsystan connection, that means you're in the minority thinking they are equally valid. acting like we are deliberately pretending not to find your case against Patsystan convincing is itself not very convincing. It's just not a strong case for Pakistani responsibility for any aspect of the attacks except maybe helping to create a plausible case for the patsies actually having done something no one has been able to prove they did--hijack airplanes. and if you are going to ask if I have proof the planes were not hijacked that day (by arab muslims IDed by the Bush admin, then I would say yes I do. Fake evidence like the miraculous passports and conveniently left Atta will, Koran, and flight manual are evidence of a false trail being planted, and you don't have to plant false trails for something that actually happened.


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


RE: Pakistan involvement

With all due respect to the people who think otherwise, I do not find the Pakistan connection very compelling.

There are 2 main reasons:

I don't believe in LIHOP.  Even if the connection were true, Pakistan would not be responsible for the NORAD failures and CD of 3 buildings.  They would not be responsible for what happened to flight 93 in my opinion either.  There is no way they could fly a plane into the ground floor of the Pentagon.  We don’t even know if they could fly the planes with any reasonable ability—certainly not into buildings.

The CIA FUNDS the ISI.  In other words, how do we KNOW that it wasn't the CIA who asked the ISI to wire the money to the patsies?  In my opinion they probably did.  But that’s speculation.  And that's the point really.  9/11 was an inside job.  Sure there might have been other countries involved but let's not kid ourselves.  They don't control the military.  They don't control security.  They didn't plan the wargames.

I’m not saying it’s not worth pursuing, I’m just saying it’s not the most damaging line of inquiry.  There are many other more important questions such as how do three buildings fall to the ground at approximately free fall speed, and how can NORAD stand down for over two hours?   

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Just remember these arguments..." by Jon Gold

Here's the crux of it.

I am not responding to Jon here, but as a general point:

Whenever the role of Israel or of American citizens with close ties to Israel is brought up, there is a cadre of voices at the ready to bring out the big guns: accusations of anti-Semitism and even Holocaust denial. As a result, it's really not true that Israel is brought up "again and again and again." There is also quite a bit of overlap between this cadre and the people who bring up Pakistan "again and again and again." Make of this what you will -- those of us who have posting here over time have had to, for ourselves.

Show "I'm not..." by Jon Gold
Show "I'm not..." by Jon Gold
Show "Edit" by Jon Gold
Show "Bullshit." by Jon Gold

I don't know why...

This is getting voted down. Casseia herself told me in Arizona that "Real Truther" purposefully likes to instigate fights on this site. Hence the word Bullshit. And since that's what he seems to like to do, I have to think she was telling me the truth.

Since she seems to like to defend his actions, and what he says, obviously she condones this type of behavior.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Okay, Jon, you have really crossed a line.

That is not what I said about Real Truther. I described RT the way that he has described himself to me: as someone who is willing to be unpopular in order to expand the boundaries of discourse here, so other people can more comfortably tackle some of the tougher issues.

I suggest you back off and also that you do not send me any more abusive private emails.

Then I suggest...

You do as I originally requested. In a less abusive kind of way. And you only received one "abusive" email, not plural.

And no, I don't quite remember it like that. But you got it. It ends here.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


No Jon, you do not have the right to tell me that I may not post on any thread on which you are posting. That is simply ridiculous. As you requested, I have not posted on any of your blogs. However, if you are going to discuss issues in which I take a strong interest in a public forum, I will exercise my right to civilly disagree.


I asked you to stay away from just my posts. Feel free to post around me. You have stabbed me in the back in a way that both disgusts me, and angers me, and in the interests of this site, I suggest we don't post to one another.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton



As I understand it, Jonny,

Part of what you "requested" was for cas. to "stay away from you" online, at 911Blogger--a site where you PUBLICALLY post.

Sorry, sunbeam, you post something PUBLIC, on a PUBLIC site--guess what? They CAN respond to you PUBLICLY on said site. Trying to say otherwise just makes you sound like a nutter.

Or someone who's been gotten to....?

Oh, and before you think sending Jenny nasty email--warning chum: only do so if you want your email account ROASTED with the returning flames. It's not amatuer's night...>:-(

Now why don't we all BLOODY WELL BEHAVE!

Assuming you can see any of this post against the right margin...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

For the record...

Here is my request.


I request that you stay away from me, my site, my posts on and my blogs on

Thank you,


Now why would I request something like that Jenny? Because I was "gotten to" or because I'm tired of the fighting on this site, and I knew that casseia and I were beyond friendship, and it would be best if we avoided one another?

And yes everyone... I am JUST as guilty as the next guy for starting fights on this site. When something annoys me like a blog with good information getting voted down, or people bullying other people into believing in something, it bothers me. I am VERY protective of this movement and this cause, and sometimes I just happen to be human, and it shows.

I apologize to everyone on the site for "in-fighting", and I promise from this point on to avoid anything that might lead to an argument, and I will NOT instigate anyone.

For this site, and for this cause, and because I simply don't have it in me anymore.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

I request that you

I request that you stay away from me, my site, my posts on and my blogs on

Thanks for being honest. Now let me return the favor, as a fellow 911activist: it's this bit "my posts on and my blogs on" that makes you sound like a nutter.

Sorry, Jonny, just because you're feeling put upon and out of sorts DOES NOT give you the right to try to control what someone writes on a PUBLIC site where they have just as much right to contribute as you do.

There is exactly ONE person who has that power and responsibility at 911Blogger, and it's NOT YOU. You have every right to decide you don't want to be friends anymore and cut off all off-site contact. But you have no right to tell her, or anyone else, not to PUBLICALLY respond to your PUBLIC posts on a PUBLICALLY accessable site. Those are the requests of a control freak jerk.

Grow up, Jonny. You've contributed alot to 911activism. Your face is known. You have influence and a online presence and all of that comes with a sodding RESPONSIBILITY. You've got personal problems with cass., you bloody well keep it out of 911activism. You do know the wee prats will glom onto anything for their debunk parties, don't you? Shite, James Bennet and Patrick Curley(I'm pretty sure it's "Curley", not "Curtiss" now) are probably laughing their arses off--"Look at the twoofers fighting among themselves! Aren't they a scream?"

Don't care? You bloody well need to care--because it's NOT about you. It's not about cass. It's not about RT. And its not about me. About helping people--and the minute you start pulling a "Nico" and stop being effective because you're more concerned about "acting out"instead of of reaching people--well, then maybe you SHOULD retire from the movement if that's where your head is at--at least until you can stop acting like a moaning ponce.

I'm going to check my email now--and GOD HELP YOU if I find some flaming tot there.




Show "No one..." by Jon Gold

Awww, I love ya both.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. :-)

Pakistan has been involved, this article is from May ,2001

these paragraphs are from an article from Nafeez Ahmed;

Afghanistan, the Taliban and the United States

As has been noted by Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid, the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph (London), from 1994-96 at least the United States “did support the Taliban, and [the Americans] cannot deny that fact.” In an important study of the issue, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Rashid showed that “between 1994-96 the US supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-western... [B]etween 1995-97, US support was driven by the UNOCAL oil/gas pipeline project.”[58]
The only countries that openly accept the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government are Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - all of which happen to be Western clients and, in particular, obedient US servants.[35] If the West exerted political or economic pressure on these countries to cease their well documented sponsoring of Taliban terrorism (via arms, for instance), it is highly likely that they would willingly acquiesce, simply because they are virtually absolutely dependent on Western - particularly American - aid
Rubin notes: “If the US is in fact supporting the joint Pakistani-Saudi backing of the Taliban in some way, even if not materially, then it has in effect decided to make Afghanistan the victim of yet another proxy war - this time aimed at Iran rather than the USSR.”
Amnesty goes on to confirm that recent “accounts of the madrasas (religious schools) which the Taleban attended in Pakistan indicate that these [Western] links [with the Taleban] may have been established at the very inception of the Taleban movement. In an interview broadcast by the BBC World Service on 4 October 1996, Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto affirmed that the madrasas had been set up by Britain, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan during the Jihad, the Islamic resistance against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.”[43] Similarly, former Pakistani Interior Minister, Major General (Retd) Naseerullah Babar, stated that “[The] CIA itself introduced terrorism in the region and is only shedding crocodiles tears to absolve itself of the responsibility.”[44]
Apart from the oil stakes, Afghanistan remains a strategic region for the US in another related respect. The establishment of a strong client state in the country would strengthen US influence in this crucial region, partly by strengthening Pakistan - a prime supporter of the Taliban - which is the region’s main American base.
” Rather than providing genuine help to the Afghan people by making available to them “the necessary facilities to rebuild an independent Afghan state and to reconstruct Afghan economy, the US Government has shamefully rewarded Pakistan in authorizing it to control Afghanistan as suzerain through the heads of Units - the warring faction’s leaders - originated in Pakistan” - evident in America’s failure to condemn the policies of its subservient Pakistani client.

The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.

Amnesty? as in Amnesty International?

Who were all over the fake babies ripped from incubator story fed to the American people by the Rendon Group using the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter as a lying actress, taking out ads condemning Iraq for its Barbarism? The BBC?

Anyway, what is the point here? Of course Pakistan supported the Taliban, along with the US. What did the Taliban have to do with 9/11 though?

Again, this is 9/11 blogger, not US support of nasty people blogger. Should we talk about Pinochet? Maybe HE had something to do with the collapse of the world trade center on top of hundreds of people--as much as the Taliban anyway! Sorry Mike, can you clarify why you think this is important?


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


Just to make clarification for arguement RT

If any arguements can be made for anything that gets debated here, there it is. 9/11 is so large and complex that all things argued , I think, need some preponderance. Which is what I meant, if you take issue with the source, then when it was reported is significant, it's also part of the 9/11 story. Yes it was Amnesty with the incubator BS, but this was to tow the line for public opinion for Desert Storm, invasion # 1. There was a rippling of destabilization in the middle east after the conflict was over, because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's told Bush Sr. this would happen if We remained there. We remained there, so who's choice was it that kept us there? The Saudi Royal families are the ones who talked of this destabilization, and yet, the Bushies and Bin Ladens have had a business relationship through the Carlyle group for years. Hussein was allowed to remain in power. Was this by design so that he could be used as a patsy in the future? Or was it believed Desert storm would weaken Hussein enough for civil war in Iraq to possibly take place.
. The main point of the post is this; It's called a war on terror and what has happened before 9/11, on 9/11, and after 9/11 shows a grand scheme for the middle east.
What Pakistan has to do with 9/11 is in a possible war with Iran in the future. They are all Islamic/ Muslim Patsies; terrorist fronts set-up to fight against one another; this infighting to be used for future conflicts. It's a game so the war on terror will continue. But who is calling the strategy? Israel, or the U.S.? And why? Who benefits the most from all this? The answer to that question is Israel. They nearly had it their way in '67, except the Liberty didn't sink. The whole point of 9/11 was to remove the biggest obstacle possible: Which would be the melting pot of the world; The United States. Freedom of the press is the most significant. These perpetraitors of 9/11 can't operate without secrecy. The light has to be put out so it can't be shone on them. Buying up the MSM would accomplish nearly all of this. So what We are in America, the civil liberties would have to be removed in order for the light to be extinguished. I do agree with Jon that the quickest path to 9/11 does go through the White House.
Having said that doesn't mean you don't bring up good points, RT. Nor does it mean that I don't like your criticism of certain points, I don't care. I do care that if We are ever to get cohesive on this 9/11, it's to do it in a wise and thoughtful manner. Is it wise to attack someone when they bring something up again and again, either just to remind or point something out? Or that it doesn't wash somehow because it seems flimsy, or the source seems flimsy? If the trail looks suspicious, why not bring it up, again? Someone new could have found something earlier that We did not know before, and it could connect some dots to the leads, which may have stopped at a dead end.

The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.


I just though it should be pointed out that Amnesty is not a credible source, and I don't think it matters that they have been at it for the last 15 years--they are no doubt still shilling for whoever butters their bread.

As for what Pakistan has to do with 9/11, we could argue that by your definition any country that is "in play" in the greater scheme of the perpetrators' machinations is fair game. I think we should bear in mind that 9/11 is a date, first and foremost--the date of a crime that has been grossly misrepresented. Of course there are myriad connections into the past and future to that date, but for the purposes of a site dealing with the events of that day, we should be careful to frame our discussions properly so as not to feed the various disinfo narratives that are actively being promoted to throw us off the trail of the perpetrators of that day's events.

On the other hand, framing things dogmatically as necessarily being part of a grand scheme isn't always a good idea, since for all we know 9/11 was actually a surprise to some the "grand schemers". The point is we need to know more about 9/11 itself before we can place it in the context of the grand schemes of the elites.

As I've said many times, I have no doubt that Pakistan's intelligence agency and military are up to no good, and that we should by virtue of their ties with our own CIA be open to considering evidence of their involvement, however minor (and I do believe the evidence that exists indicates a minor role). My concern is that people just arriving on the scene (I find newbie to be an offensive term!) may not understand that there is a big difference of opinion on the importance of Pakistan to the actual unquestionable events of 9/11.


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


I have considered your point... fair enough

If there are newcomers to this site in this moment or future moments. Then what will they read? what questions will they have? How the buildings got wired for CD is the toughest question that has yet to be answered, and who did the job, is another. We see the end results during and after the collapses, but how and when these buildings were wired will complete the circle to conviction. Till then, these questions remain unanswered. Now if someone asks why we are seeing a rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan and how We missed not destroying their network, is to answer that Pakistan, an ally, took care of that; They sheltered the Taliban until the opportunity arose. To keep the "war on terror" rolling.That was My reason for mentioning the details.
I now have pre-9/11 info on the set-up; motives and players. I now have post-9/11info confirming motives and players. So now I need to look for who could do the wiring of the WTC buildings. But I will still keep looking into the "Grand Scheme" of the middle east, however You frame it. 9/11 needed a motive, 9/11 needed a scapegoat(s), 9/11 was an opportunity, who's opportunity? Why? It needed many players, including some who didn't know because they would react according to human nature. Natural reactions, but I do search for anything that would lead to who had access and ability to wire the buildings up. I just hope My PC can handle all the info that is still to come. I certainly have plenty now.

The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.

just goes to show that....

Despite what some people say, the Pakistani connection is explored to exhaustion on this site, while the hows and whens of controlled demolition are actually left barely touched. I think one reason is that the hows and whens aren't so important, since we know they were used and don't need to explain how it was done--that's for the perps, but I think we should make an effort to explore some of these issues.

Now then--for those who refuse to look at the work of Eric Hufschmid either because he may be disinfo or because you think he is a holocaust denier, you should know what he published about this in his book Painful Deceptions (or Questions I forget which is the DVD and which is the book...) anyway in the book he goes into detail with regard to how he thinks the demolition was carried out.

His main point on that score is that the explosives were probably detonated via radio signals instead of the usual detcord. I forget his reasoning, but a debunker clued me in recently--because detcord is essentially hard wired, the planes' impacts could have set off a chain reaction of detonations that would have ruined the effect. Remote wrieless detonators (and no they are not in any way theoretical technology) would have the advantage of enabling the perps (perhaps from a vantage point in building 7) to detonate the explosives in whatever sequence seemed appropriate as events developed. As to why thermite would also have been used, I would argue that because of the need to hide the detonations they would have to either be timed to happen simultaneously with the plane impacts (and we know this happened in the north tower at the time of the plane impacting the south tower) or been small enough not to produce visible effects from outside the building. The thermite could then have been used to "silently" cut through the thicker beams so that smaller explosive charges could be used.

Anyway, thanks for bringing up that point--it made me realize how little we actually discuss CD!


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


right--who best to predict an attack?

someone who knows it's going to happen. who best to "lead" a truth movement? someone who can say he was the first to know about the plot and warn people. who best to nip a truth movement in the bud? someone who runs stories without verifying them time and time again--like Hugo Chavez agreeing to hold an international truth conference, or Screw Loose Change guys recanting and having a falling out. So other than selling lots of stuff that most of us use our own money to spread around for free, selling ads on his radio show and subscriptions to his site, what does AJ add to the movement? A loud and some think obnoxious style with a right wing bent. I know he has a pretty strong following but I don't mind going against popular opinion, that sort of helps when you're a truther! Nor do I like putting people on pedestals--increases the chances of getting "Fetzered". Our loyalty should be to the truth and to good truthing practice, not to any individuals. I gladly take criticism--it keeps me honest. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, big deal, I admit it and move on. Anyone who thinks anyone else be it me, AJ or even DRG is infallible is setting themselves up for disappointment.


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


Nicely stated

RT wrote " I know he has a pretty strong following but I don't mind going against popular opinion, that sort of helps when you're a truther! Nor do I like putting people on pedestals--increases the chances of getting "Fetzered". Our loyalty should be to the truth and to good truthing practice, not to any individuals. I gladly take criticism--it keeps me honest. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, big deal, I admit it and move on. Anyone who thinks anyone else be it me, AJ or even DRG is infallible is setting themselves up for disappointment."

Nice to read that bit of writing.

You're starting to sound like a nuisance.

The other day you were promoting Mitt Romney. Hello!? What's up with that?!



Didn't take you long to get settled in, did it? So you've been with us for two days and you already know how to misrepresent--good! Doesn't matter that I was not actually promoting him as the best candidate overall, but in the sense that it might be good to have the dems and repubs dividing power and fighting amongst themselves. And never mind that by saying he might be the best repub it prompted people to enlighten me and others about Romney's recent courting of Jeb Bush, which I said was good to know and changed everything for me--never mind that that was an example of how not being afraid to say what's on my mind led to my learning something I didn't know from some of the dedicated posters here.

When people sign up and immediately start going after someone with misleading posts, my inclination is to think they aren't really sincere, but maybe trying to even the playing field when they see things not quite going their way (or their friends'). But whatever, bring it on! The more the merrier.


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


don't forget...

KSM is a well know ISI agent. yes, there's no "credible evidence" of Pakistan involvement in 9/11, not that we know about yet though. but i have heard that Pakistan paid the 9/11 Commission to not include them in the investigation. which makes sense because remember that ISI funded Al Qaeda, The ISI by its own disclosure is an arm of the CIA. so the CIA was functioning as a liaison between Pakistan and Al Qaeda. So, if Al Qaeda is funded by the ISI, and the ISI is funded by the CIA.......2+2=4

What im saying is that Pakistan is probably connected somehow to 9/11. Maybe we will learn how someday.

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

-George W. Bush November 11, 2001

There is...

"Credible evidence" linking Pakistan to 9/11. It has been reported on and expanded upon for more than 5 years. If the information linking Pakistan to 9/11 is not "credible evidence", then I have no place being here.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

The organisation is called Jundullah

It trained the liquid bombers.

It was apparently founded in 2003 and seems to be connected to KSM. The Asia Times even claims he ran it.

I doubt that, but there's probably a connection because he was head of al-Qaeda's media committee and they did some media work for al-Qaeda. There are also reports it was run by KSM's relatives, which sound reasonable.

Did you ever wonder why KSM was only named once during the Bojinka trial and why his indictment was sealed for two years?

btw, Ramzi Yousef was also involved in terrorism in Iran - he killed about 25 people there back in '94.

Liquid Bombers?

Sorry, chum, that two part liquid explossive tot is, well, TOT.

Don't need to be trained in something that's not possible. The most they could have done with what they alledgedly used would be cause a fire--the airline has prepared for such a contingency, reguardless of the cause, with these wacky things called "fire extinguishers".

Now, if someone can give me a link to a credable source for two part "mix and go" liquid explosives, PREDATING this "false flap", Jenny will reconsider.

Until then my eyes remain rolled...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

It was taken over by the CIA and ISI

Jundullah was taken over by the ISI and the CIA BEFORE it trained the liquid bombers. The plot was stupid and would not work. It's a false flag plot that's designed to fail and be broken up with a big media hullaballoo. There was a similar one involving a group of Lebanese the CIA hired to pose as Libyans back in the 80s, after the US bombed Libya.

oh I forgot--KSM confessed to planning 9/11

my bad, you must be right then--just one thing--Pakistan's motive in all this?


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



What would be their motive?

Yet, we have just tons of documentation that the ISI is a branch office of the CIA.


........when the vise of Truth starts to close.....

The "muslim operative" stories an impenetrable thicket

As this Rawstory suggests(to me at least) the whole idea of understanding the true allegience of purported muslim operatives in the 9/11 era is really impossible.

The waters have been muddied as far as the "muslim" actors are concerned and this seems deliberately so.

credible evidence...

i should of worded it differently. depending on what your definition of "credible evidence" is...its hard to tell in todays world what is credible or not. i however believe that the ISI and Pakistan has alot to do with 9/11.


You should.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Pakistan Involvement

Did Pakistan influence the 9/11 Comission Report?

I wonder why they would bother lobbying if they weren't involved in some fashion. I think it's likely Pakistan was a conduit for intel, money and other tangibles like drugs and perhaps (nuclear) arms or technology in either a coordinating effort or a pay-off ... much the same way the UAE was involved though perhaps closer to the source.

Disturbing is how certain folks seem to leap at the chance to dismiss this connection on the off chance that it might not fit perfectly with their own preconceived 'theory' of what happened. If people are going in knowing everything and unwilling to look at new or different leads, I think it's a bit hypocritical to call it the 'truth movement'.

To read some of the stuff coming out of the 'truth' movement, one would question that muslims or arab exist at all.

The Friday Times? The Telegraph of Calcutta? Unnamed sources?

Dude, think critically much? And I quote:

The 9/11 Commission made "dramatic changes" to its final report to omit information about the role of Pakistan, according to The Friday Times, a Pakistani weekly. After learning that the report would contain damaging revelations, the Pakistani government dispatched lobbyists to Washington to influence the 9/11 Commission, and may have even paid bribes to Commission members or their staff, the weekly says, citing an official at the Pakistani Foreign Office. “The disclosure sheds doubt on the integrity and honesty of the members of the 9/11 Inquiry Commission and above all on the authenticity of the information in their final report,” according to one source cited by the weekly. The story was picked up yesterday by The Telegraph of Calcutta, India and is now shooting around the blogosphere. We cannot vouch for its veracity, but we can guess at the sort of information that both the US and the Pakistani government might have wanted to omit from The 9/11 Commission Report:


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

Why do people...

Say that it was an "unnamed source?"

Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan and Special Secretary Sher Afgan were present at the meeting when an FO official, Sadiq, who was part of the secret negotiations with members of the US inquiry team and has just returned from Washington after completing a three-year tenure at the Pakistan embassy, revealed that a lot of money had been spent to ‘silence’ the members of the inquiry commission and induce them to go ‘soft’ on Pakistan.

What people don't report on is the fact that they denied it.

And at that point, it becomes a he said/she said. Still worth investigating.

Especially since Pakistan's OBVIOUS "alleged" involvement was NOT mentioned in the 9/11 Report.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Maybe it was about getting the F-16's

Perhaps Pakistan wanted no bad press to interfere with their delayed since the 90's aquisition of F-16 fighter jets.

This deal was originally delayed by their pursuit of nuclear weapons technology.


Are our "bestest buddies" in the "War On Terror". It was recently reported that Pakistan has "received at least $10 billion in economic, military and development aid from the United States, over $6 billion in privatization proceeds, and a relief of $1.6 billion in loan write-offs by foreign governments over the last seven years, the experts say."

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

why would we need to buy them off

if they had to buy off the 9/11 commission? why not just threaten them with coming out with the truth and annihilating them if they don't cooperate? And who is this Sadiq? A man with no first (or last) name? It's just as likely someone was bribed to make something like this up as it is that the 9/11 commission was bribed to silence them. And did they approach everyone and bribe them, or just Zelikow? Sorry but you need a lot better evidence than that.


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



Since Pakistan's involvement wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 Report, it makes more sense that they were bribed than it does someone making up a story about it. All I said is that it was worth investigating. I did not say that it happened.

If you're interested in who Sadiq is, then why don't you look him up?

I was looking at your profile just now, and I noticed you say, "I feel that the demolition of the world trade center is the defining event of 9/11, and the one that we should focus on the most."

Does that mean if someone mentions anything other than "Controlled Demolition" related information, you have to vote it down, shoot it down, etc...?

I ask because that's what you've been doing.

I'm concerned because it seems as though this movement is being turned into the "Controlled Demolition Movement" as opposed to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

At least online, and in the media.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


What's with the secular arguments over what we're 'allowed' to talk about?

I fully believe CD was involved.

There's obviously a lot to 9/11 other than CD, however.

As Ruppert said in the beginning of The Truth and Lies of 9/11, simply focusing on physical evidence of an investigation will get you nowhere, a la the Zapruder film.

We need to 'use their own words against them.'

I'm disheartened by all the negativity, pessimism and secular arguing over who has the most valid point.

Me to.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Jon is the only one who pretends he's not allowed to talk

what he means is that he's not allowed to talk about things without having those who disagree say so.

as for Ruppert, you may not know that he abandoned the truth movement as a lost cause and "fled to Venezuela". and no one cared, so he came back. Ruppert is a walking, talking drama queen and has very little credibility left. But oops, I guess I'm not allowing people to talk about Ruppert when I say that right?


There will be no more "secular arguing"--all arguing must now be religious! And since you've read my profile I'm sure you know what the OFFICIAL RELIGION of this site is!!

See, that's me acting like you pretend I act. See the difference?


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



Every post you've written in this thread has a sarcastic and negative tone.

Why is Ruppert a "walking, talking drama queen"? Because he discusses his severe health problems on FTW?

Why does he have "very little credibility left"? I don't claim to have all the answers on global warming and peak oil. But Ruppert's diligence on 9/11 has been amazing.

Why would you assume you know the reason why he went to Venezuela?

Ruppert is a lot smarter than you or me.

You're talking about a guy who has spent most of his life fighting corruption at the highest levels. He's probably been threatened more times than we care to know.

Why must you be so negative and sarcastic?

because he blogged it

or did you miss that whole episode where he went on and on about how we were fools to keep fighting, that the thing to do was run away, that all hope was lost. ok, so you think Ruppert is smarter than you or me. You're welcome to. Good luck with that approach! you should probably send him some cash, too!


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



Again, every single one of your posts has some sort of sarcastic tone to it.

You seem to think you are the only one who knows what they're talking about in here, thus your sarcastic endings to All of your posts, at least in this thread.

Good luck with my approach? Ok pal. Your approach seems very counterproductive to me. You simply poo-poo people who don't agree with your 'approach' of negativity and sarcasm.

Like Jon Gold said, you set the tone of this thread by suggesting 'no credible evidence linking Pakistan to 9/11' which simply is not true.

Ruppert is leaps and bounds smarter than you or me. Have you produced an 800 page book with thousands of footnotes in explicit detail? Me neither. Have you been in Washington fighting corruption for years and years, way before 9/11? Me neither. How has he won all those awards for being an investigating officer?

Ruppert was frustrated with this movement because of the direction it was going and the concentration on the physical evidence. He said from the beginning not to simply focus on the physical evidence and he's right. I don't know where or when he's said to stop fighting, considering FTW is still up and running with 9/11-related info.

I perceived that after he finished his book and got sick that he decided it was best for him to retire from investigative journalism. Where did he say for you and I to give up?

Either way, this whole back and forth is ridiculous. I would suggest not ending all of your posts with some sort of sarcastic remark which only fuels this futile fire.

Ruppert has done a lot of

Ruppert has done a lot of great work but saying that he is a drama-queen is not a stretch at all. even some of his biggest fans would probably concede that.

Thanks Chris...

Here's the transcript from Nightline. I just had to shell out $14.95 for it, so make sure you read every word.

(OC) Good evening, Martin. Pakistani and US intelligence sources tell ABC News that the US has been secretly advising and encouraging a militant group that has carried out a series of guerrilla raids inside Iran that have led to the deaths or capture of Iranian soldiers and officials.

(VO) The group operates out of the Baluchistan Province of Pakistan just across the border from Iran. The group, made up of Baluchi tribesmen, has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan. One tape shows what it says is the execution of a Revolutionary Guard official. US government sources say the US provides no direct funding to the group, but since 2005, has maintained close ties to its youthful leader, this man, Abdel Malik Regi, who claims to have personally executed some of the Iranian captives.

He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban - a Sunni activist.

They go across the border there.

Here. And they're based mainly...

Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant, says tribal sources have told him Regi and his group, called Jundullah, are getting money funneled through Iranian exiles who have connections to European and Gulf State countries.

He is, essentially, commanding a force of several hundred guerilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers.

Last year Iran actually paid a $1.3 million ransom to get the release of some of their kidnapped border guards. And who do they pay it to?

They are escorted by Pakistani intelligence into Pakistan to meet with Jundullah officials and, probably, Regi himself to make the exchange, to give the money and get the hostages back. So Pakistani intelligence, in many ways, is involved in that.

Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan. Last month, Iranian state television broadcasted what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack. The TV report interspersed the confessions with the logo of the CIA, which it accused of organizing the plot, something the CIA strongly denies. The captured militants reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.

This absolutely could not happen without the approval at the most senior level of the Pakistani government.

In fact, Pakistani sources say the secret campaign against Iran was on the agenda when Vice President Cheney met with Pakistani President Musharraf in February. Some analysts fear it is a policy that will backfire for the US in Iran.

I don't think it makes sense at all. The center of gravity of this government is its Farsi speaking Iranian population. They are the ones who control the action. And to the extent you start playing games with the minorities in the country, the more you anger this group. And among this group are vast numbers of people unhappy with the regime. The more you bother them by playing games with the minorities, the more they would tend to rally around the clerical regime, corrupt or not.

But there are signs someone is trying to organize the country's disparate minority groups. This well produced website has just recently appeared online, reporting to be the work of a group called, The Oppressed Nations Organization. It has its own national flag representing the Baluchis, the Arabs and other minority groups in Iran.

There is a suspicion that the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, other governments in the region, who worry about Iran have come to the conclusion that the ethnic minority issue is the Iranian regime's Achilles heel. It's much more likely to respond to an ethnic challenge from within.

Finally, there is the ironic twist that the group the US has been secretly advising and encouraging, Jundullah, shares many of the same religious beliefs and violent tactics of al Qaeda itself.

[1]23:50:06 VALI NASR XE "VALI NASRXXYYAA:Speaking" (senior fellow)
We already got burned with the Taliban, with this - with turning a blind eye, or supporting this kind of a thing in Afghanistan. Supporting al Qaeda type groups, in the Middle East, if that indeed is the case, will come and bite us at some point.

The only relationship the US government will acknowledge with this group is accepting help in tracking al Qaeda figures in this part of Pakistan. Otherwise, US officials strongly deny any direct funding for action against Iran. Martin?

Brian, what is the objective in sponsoring these attacks within Iran? What does the administration hope to achieve by this?

The administration has spoken several times about the importance of the minority groups in Iran. And in an attempt to destabilize the central government in Tehran, can flow out of the effort, they believe, of stirring up, essentially, the minority groups across the country.

There's clearly no direct relationship between the news - you've been breaking tonight and the fate of those 15 British soldiers. But what does it tell us about the pressures that are being exerted on the regime in?

Well, Martin, whatever the CIA is or is not doing, certainly the Iranian government believes in its heart that the CIA is behind all of these attacks. So, that tempers and clouds and colors every decision they make. And in fact, when those 15 British sailors were captured, Iranian officials went on TV locally, and said they're here to stir up the minorities. And this was a way to sell it to the Iranian people that the British and the US are out to get us.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

I do not believe...

In "Blowback" regarding 9/11.

This proves beyond the shadow of doubt that the Bush Administration has a working relationship with the ISI, and through them, "terrorism."

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

and Congress has a link to terrorism through AIPAC

and Israel is our "bestest buddy" in the war on terror Jon, as you well know. don't just look at foreign aid but also at contracts--where are American law enforcement officials being sent to "study terrorism"? and don't get me started on how much AIPAC spreads around to keep people "silent" on certain issues. Patsystan don't come close.


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


Got it...


We can only talk about:

  1. Larry Silverstein

  2. Zionism

  3. Israel

  4. Mossad

  5. Controlled Demolition

  6. AIPAC

I'll make sure to ask dz to add that to the list of rules when he comes back.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Posts like that reflect intellectual dishonesty

or simply stubbornness. It's hard to say which.

And dishonest posts...

That are meant to inflame arguments such as, "There is no credible evidence linking Pakistan to the events of 9/11" have no place on this site. That's easy to say.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Please give Rosie your support in ABC Poll...

Just one click, is all it takes...

Poll Link :


Count my vote

I cant believe Bill-O is winning that poll! Come on guys, VOTE!

who do you think... counting those votes?

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

My vote didn't count

I did vote but my vote didn't seem to count (I vote for Rosie) and there was a message : something like "message null"
I mean if their voting machine is tricked what can we do? They are the masters of their site. I know it's deceiving both it's so easy to deceive people nowadays...


[*sarcasm*]... If they can

If they can stage presidential elections, chances are they're able to stage a Bill O'Really poll too.

Idea: anyone seen the site? Someone should set up (or similar).

the totals are less important than the trends

Rosies totals are rising much faster tha BO's. Yesterday BO had twice the support (leading by 100%) now he only leads Ro by roughly 50%... that means that if the poll continues, RO will win!


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


...if the poll continues

and is not rigged, RO will win!


I don't think it's rigged (just a hunch) I just think somehow the BO supporters got wind of it first. We should all if we haven't already send it out to our lists! I admit I haven't yet, but I will right now. We can win this poll--let's DO it for RO!!!!!


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


conspiracy calculus

Bill O'Reilly's. Rosie has really gone too far this time.
Rosie's. She should be able to express an opinion that she feels is underrepresented in the media.5,135
Neither. I find them both annoying.2,077

one hour ago:

Bill O'Reilly's. Rosie has really gone too far this time.
Rosie's. She should be able to express an opinion that she feels is underrepresented in the media.5,066
Neither. I find them both annoying.2,075
Total Vote: 14,086

So in the last hour Rosie: 69, BO: 29, Neither: 2

Yeah, it's not where you are, it's where you're headed!

update 3 hours since:

Bill O'Reilly's. Rosie has really gone too far this time.
Rosie's. She should be able to express an opinion that she feels is underrepresented in the media.5,462
Neither. I find them both annoying.2,089

Running total since 4 p.m. : RO: 396 BO: 158 NO: 12
in the first hour RO had 2.38 times BO's total
in the first hour plus the next three she had 2.50 his total

meaning she's not only gaining, but gaining at a faster rate as time goes by.

Yeah, we'll own this poll by about tomorrow morning 9 a.m. (i'm sure someone who's better at math than I can actually give a more precise prediction based on this data...

update after 4 more hours: Bill O'Reilly's. Rosie has really gone too far this time.
Rosie's. She should be able to express an opinion that she feels is underrepresented in the media.6,016
Neither. I find them both annoying.2,101
Total Vote: 15,289

ONLY in last four hours: RO: 554 BO: 69 NO:12

so to recap
FIRST four hours of my sample
RO support 2.50 times that of BO

NEXT four hours
RO support 8.02 times that of BO

Whoa--that's some acceleration... let's see--I predict that by noon tomorrow we will see the following:

BO: 7350
NO: 2150

At around the same time as Josh Holland's Alternet post dissing RO reaches 1000 comments.

Uh, yeah, we're gonna win. :)

Not a bad prediction, though I was off by three hours or so:

Rosie's. She should be able to express an opinion that she feels is underrepresented in the media.
Bill O'Reilly's. Rosie has really gone too far this time.7,284
Neither. I find them both annoying.2,131
Total Vote: 16,859

And now we scream ahead! Looks like RO was just warming up! Check this progress in the last 2 hours!

Rosie's. She should be able to express an opinion that she feels is underrepresented in the media.
Bill O'Reilly's. Rosie has really gone too far this time.7,303
Neither. I find them both annoying.2,141
Total Vote: 17,625


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


people piss me off.......

Conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly has blasted Rosie O'Donnell for comments she made on "The View" about British captives in Iran.

Whose side are you on?

Bill O'Reilly's. Rosie has really gone too far this time.
Rosie's. She should be able to express an opinion that she feels is underrepresented in the media.4,451
Neither. I find them both annoying.2,040
Total Vote: 13,048


I was just thinking this morning that Washington Journal needs to have a well-educated guest on for at least 30 minutes taking calls about 9/11 Truth.... David Ray Griffin would be the best!

Did anyone hear that guy on this morning talking about Iraq? and how his son died there, so he had to travel there? Just so happens, he was saying that things are going well over there. That guy was a shill of the administration!

What we call the news

Video Archive Of Recent Attacks On Rosie O'Donnell, 9/11 Truth

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

how can

..........they slander her the way they do?And the big kicker is where is the media coverage on this?

we ARE the media

you didn't get the memo? :)


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


Those neocons over at

Those neocons over at Fox/CNN are doing themselves more harm than good with their coverage on O'Donnell's 9/11 stance -- and it's a welcome step forward (even though each time the attack dogs go to work, I'm absolutely enraged/sickened).

In other news: Mr Bush has been invited to my hometown.

Let's hope he takes up the invitation -- he won't be getting the welcome reception he might hope for!

I'm just a nobody trying to debate this...

After seeing several videos I'm trying to debate with others that this is an inside job. I find it's ok to start with family and friends, but best not to push it with them. So, I try other venues to debate and I only go to the subject with family and friends when they bring it up. I use sporting sites to debate with common people. I find this a good place to debate without "going public". Basically I'm trying to derail the NIST report. I'm using some of Kevin Ryan's work, but will try to include some of Hoffman's work and Journal of 911 studies .com. If someone can help with one or two other key sources concerning the trade centers, I'd appreciate it. Just one question of many I got was, why weren't any wires or blasting caps, or any demolition stuff found in the cleanup?

Thanks, it's my way of trying to contribute to the movement.

Show them this...

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace


I bookmarked the video for referencing.

I like this essay...

Pulverization from resistance vs free fall collapse speed. Short and effective, without going through technical or scientific stuff. This is my favorite argument when I debate with common people. It makes them think, believe me.

As far as why any demolition stuff found in the cleanup, just realize that no desk, no computer, no file cabinet, no telephone, no nothing has been found in the cleanup. Everything has been pulverized (we need a new, temporary law of gravity here), so is the demolition stuff, IMHO.

no nothing has been ...

Of course other objects were found- such as all of the recovered hard drives sent to Germany, the black boxes, and the paper blown everywhere. This comment by a resue worker is powerful, yet misleading, so I avoid it.


I think I'll say that since the blasting caps, wires, etc were closest to the charges, it's easy to see why they got completely pulverized as opposed to items that are farther away. Thanks for the idea.

Remember the magic passport

You're forgetting that they found the hijacker-pilot's passport.

Everything was pulverized except that passport. The steel girders and beams melted, but the passport did not even burn. In fact, the pictures I saw of it looked like it did not even get dirty. Somehow it floated away on the breezes, onto Vesey Street where who knows who found it.

No traces from the actual people in the cockpit survived, obviously, or of anything else in the cockpit or plane or in fact the whole building. But the passport survived.

It's a Passport...Not a Boarding Pass

Need one of those stubs to prove He was on the plane. They never found one of those, nor did they find the names on the flight manifest. So that means....PLANTED EVIDENCE

The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.

The following has worked hundreds of times for me

I copy the good closeup of WTC7 falling with my video cell phone feature by photographing my pc screen.
Just yesterday I showed the video to about 12 people. People in line at stores, people in the bank line and many many other connections.
Then I ask them what they see in the short video. Everyone has said it is a building demolition.
I then explain that it was wtc 7 falling in 6.5 seconds @ 5:21 on 9/11/2001. I then get the usual ????????????
Then I ask if they want some dvds for more information.
If you have a cell phone with the vid feature please try this yourself.

My God...

I'm an idiot, why haven't I been doing that? Works great, thanks!

you effing genius.

you effing genius.

Broad guidelines--hope they help ;-)

1: consider your audiance and what you are trying to accomplish. Do you want to "debate" anyone? Or do you want help fram the evidence people haven't been exposed to? If it's familly, friends. other people you want to help see the ugly truth, your goal should not be debate--your goal should be to pick the most solid evidence you can, present it to them, and then leave them be to think on it. They have questions? Talk about why YOU don't believe in the official story, why YOU don't believe the NIST report holds water. Don't overwhelm a newbe--answer what questions they have and then let them be. This last bit is very hard to do--try not to come off as if you're selling copies of the "WatchTower".

2: if your audiance is open, stick to solid arguments every reasonable person can agree on. Example--instead of debating what hit the Pentagon, point out NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon. Instead of arguing over the melting point of steel, point out no other steel framed buildings, outside of 911, have collapsed due to fire. Instead of "Bush did it" , point out both Bush and Cheney tried to stop an investigation into MASS MURDER--blatent guilty demeanor. These are just examples--as NIST is your focus, apply the principle where you see fit.

3: if you find out your audiance(online) is simply a troll or shill(usually they will mock instead of responding to your points, or take what you say WAY out of context), call them on their behaviour--AND THEN DISENGAGE. "I'm sorry sir/ madame--you appear to want to engage in person attacks instead of a discussion. I will ignore your posts from now on". It is NEVER worth arguing the evidence with debunks or shills. Unless you're a pro, and know how to get to them, there is nothing to be gained--you'll just get sucked into drama. DEBATING TROLLS IS FOR EXPERTS ONLY. ;-)

4: These may not be germain to the NIST points you are focusing on, but they are magic as far as exposing people to the concept and getting their mental wheels turning:

911Press for Truth
Towers of Deception by Barrie Zwicker
911Commission Report--Ommission and Distortions by David Ray Griffin

I know you're eager just to "prove these facts and make people see", gosh darn it! But without framing, they will not "grok" it. Without framing, they will have no place to put this new knowledge that you're presenting.

Anyhoo, good luck--I'll end with how I summarize my position if I'm posting briefly somewhere:

Premeditated murder is is ALWAYS a conspiracy. Those who, destroyed evidence at the murder scene, tried to stop the murder investigation, and tampered with said murder investigation, make themselves, AT THE VERY LEAST, accessories after the fact to premeditated murder....

Oh, and what that bloke(?) said about showing them WTC7 collapseing and asking them what it is without telling them it's WTC7--that's brilliant!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

The vote is actually...

...about Rosie's "Gulf of Tonkin" statement regarding the British sailors held by Iran, so I'm not surprised that B.O. is winning. I'm willing to bet that less than .01% of the population knows what the hell the GoT incident was (or any other False Flag operation, for that matter, or even what the term "False Flag" means). So why would we be surprised that B.O. is winning?

As of yesterday, the Brits have given Iran 48 hours to release the captives, but from the photos I've seen, with the smiley-faced captives (maybe they're drugged on cheap, U.S.-sponsored Afghani heroin?), it looks to me like they're having a nice, unplanned vacation, so why would they want to leave. The deadline seems oddly close to the U.S.'s April 6 attack predicted in that Russian article from last week, and if it happens, it will be the first prediction that I'm aware of that's actually come true...

Iran to release British sailors:

let's see what they say on their return!

that is, if they're allowed to talk... :)


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


U.S. says former FBI agent missing in Iran

By Sue Pleming 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is asking Iran to provide information about a former FBI agent believed to have gone missing several weeks ago while on private business there, U.S. officials said on Monday.


State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the family and employer of the man reported him missing and the State Department was sending an official inquiry to Iran via Swiss diplomats, who act as a go-between with Tehran because the two countries do not have diplomatic relations.

"His family and his employer are seeking to determine exactly where he is," McCormack said, declining for privacy reasons to provide any details on the man or his employer.

The FBI confirmed the missing man had worked for the FBI more than a decade ago but said he was not in Iran on any official business and his work at the agency had not focused on Iran.

"The individual is not an FBI contractor. Furthermore, the individual's primary assignments in the FBI focused on criminal matters, such as traditional organized crime," the FBI said in a statement.

"At this time, there are no indications that this matter should be viewed other than as a missing person case," the FBI added.

McCormack also emphasized the American was in Iran on private business and was not working for the U.S. government.

"We don't see any linkage between this case and any ongoing cases in the news recently," McCormack said, referring to 15 British sailors and Marines who are being held captive by Iran, which says their vessel strayed into Iranian waters.

Relations are very tense between the United States and Iran, particularly over its nuclear program. The two nations have not had diplomatic ties for nearly 30 years.

The missing man, described by officials as middle-aged, is believed to have been visiting Kish island off the southern coast of Iran where he was trying to set up interviews for a third party. His wife lives in the United States.

McCormack said the United States had been monitoring the situation for several weeks but had not so far found any information on the man's whereabouts.

A State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the department learned of the case about March 11 and had not so far uncovered any reliable information to indicate the Iranian government was involved.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been briefed about the case, he said, without providing further details. He added that there were two to three cases every year of Americans who were reported missing in Iran.

"It's not completely a unique scenario to have an American citizen go missing there and possibly need consular support," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

MSNBC and Fox.....

Both slamming Rosie last night . my sister called me. She's becoming a 9/11 truther. I missed it as I don't watch either channel.

Fox is a CIA/NSA operation masquerading as a news channel!

CNN & MSNBC are loaded with so many CIA/NSA moles, they are nearly as corrupt as Fox!

I love the open thread!

Seems like a basic FBI intelligence gathering technique.

there would seem to be more intelligence on this site

than in the FBI, maybe some of it will rub off!


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


Sander Hicks is trying to preserve the Muslims did it myth

And it's rather telling that his views have to be protected from dissent on the thread where they are posted. He is no better than Fetzer.

That's all I'm going to say about this.


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


Why not say more?

I'd like to hear more about this Sander guy...

Show "Why not say more?" by jfal

as opposed to reveiling myself as a poor speller

english your first language jfal?


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



Fetzer writes the introduction to Hicks latest publication. Just FYI. 

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Northwest Indiana Truth Conference

Good morning truthers,

I just wanted to give you all a heads up on the NWITruth conference being held on 5/26. It will take place in Valparaiso, Indiana ( about 50 miles SW of Chicago..right below the lake...) I can't say for certain who will be speaking. I have a few lined up. Please mark your calendars. More info will be available at


Show "These are just a few sites" by Mark Roberts

I wholeheartedly encourage people to learn both sides

When honest people looking for answers (not confirmation of what they want to believe) they will see how deficient all the "debunking" explanations are.

In fact, check out Prof. David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" for a one-stop rebuttal to the official conspiracy theory and its fanatical defenders!

Book Description
By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11. Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." It is not surprising, therefore, that the government and the corporately controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it.
In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin riddles recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine. He also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications-which one might have expected to be supportive.

Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly leveled against critics of the official theory-that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith-actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory.

This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim-that 9/11 was an inside job-remains the only explanation that fits the facts.

About the Author
David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. His 30 books include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), 9/11 and American Empire (2006, with Peter Dale Scott).


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


Whoa! Mr tour guide!

..............Still fighting to keep the facts secret i see.Let me guess O'rilley is your hero? I was so looking foward to seeing you ,and your debate team on Team Liberty.What happened? Get a clue!

Mark Roberts, it's an honor to have you here.

You may want to update your bio to include your excellent work as 9/11 Debunker and Troll (exhibiting the same gutsy style):

I hope they're paying you well.

Dr. Frank Greening...

Hello Mark. I was curious, what do you make of Dr. Greenings latest statement about JREF and the NIST report?

He says he is agnostic about 9/11 now.

Oh, yes, let's see what our Mark has to say about that.

And while you're at it, get Brainster and JamesB to weigh in--if they can't tear themselves away from their obsession with some guys penis (I kid thee not; see this comments thread:
where in a bunch of alledgedly straight boys are, um, a bit obsessed...)

Screw Loose has finally blogged Greening:

Pat says Greening is "very hard to follow."

Care to elaborate, Brainster?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Is this.... April Fool's Joke?

Not Funny.

I think it's a hoax

The domain name in URL doesn't seem legit. Not

Check what some sick little

Interview: America's new homeland security chief tells Toby Harn

"The United States fears that the next September 11-style attack on America could be launched by Muslims from Britain or Europe who feel "second-class citizens" and alienated by a "colonial legacy", according to the US Homeland Security chief."...

"Where you find some softness is in some elements of the media or in some elements of the intellectual class who convince themselves that this is our fault, or that there's an easier way to avoid the problem if we can just figure what price we have to pay. That is a plea to the sensibility of exhaustion and history has shown that's a very damaging and very destructive impulse."

9/11 facts on the Sudden Implosion of WTC Building 7 are inconsi

From The Canadian:

9/11 facts on the Sudden Implosion of WTC Building 7 are inconsistent with official Muslim conspiracy scenario
by David R. Kimball

"One reason that few remember WTC Building 7’s collapse is that after September 11th it has been treated, both in the media and in The 9/11 Commission Report, as if it didn’t happen."

Sibel Edmonds????

A couple weeks ago alot of people were talking about Sible Edmonds and how Waxman was going to rule on whether or not to hear her testimony, she was even on the ALEX JONES show.........since then i've heard NOTHING about it. not on here, not on alex jones, what's UP? with SIBEL EDMONDS????

why doesn't she just spill it?

are we to believe that if she reveals what she knows that the uproar wouldn't be enough to protect her? at what point does that woman stop fearing for her own safety and start fearing for the safety of the thousands of poelpe being slaughtered by these criminals?

"Oh no, sorry Sibel--you may have exposed some of our politicians as being ruthless criminals, but you're going to have to stand trial--or better yet, be sent to Guantamo for violating your gag order."

What kind of penalties are there for violating an invalid gag order? puh-leeze... I'm officially off the Sibel bandwagon until her story starts making a little more sense.


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


Spill it online and in the European press

Contrary to suggestions that the story would be ignored, the international press and the internet would be like wild dogs fighting for scraps..

If Judith Miller can go to jail for stupidity and fake integrity in protecting her sources(Scooter Libby among others), then Sibel Edmonds and others like her should refuse immoral orders and create the history that begs to be born.

Cuz whatever she "spills"

Cuz whatever she "spills" while under a gag order immediatly becomes inadmissable...

Time for a new Zogby poll

What happened to that idea for starting a fund to pay for a new Zogby poll?
I thought it was a great idea, and there was a lot of enthusiasm when it was suggested last weekend.

I've been listening to Lionel again lately...

I don't know why I stopped frankly, it's refreshing to hear him talk about 9/11 in a sane way, especially with humor. He pretty much echoes my sentiment with Rosie. I wasn't really a fan, but hey it wasn't my demographic. But I am a fan now, and I guarantee the ratings will get exponentially higher. It's on now, either she gets canned and you get to see Barbara Walters try to excuse cutting edge fascism or you get a real, honest talk about 9/11 in the mainstream.

Oh... I also found this gem, an Abraham Lincoln vs Steven A. Douglas cage match, I highly reccommend it to everyone...

Bill O'Reilly Is a JFK Truther

(He must really hate his Country!)

Bill O'Reilly, when he was on Inside Edition, reports on Oswald's association with the CIA.

Gee Bill, here you are spouting a conspiracy theory! That's unamerican. Why do you hate this country, you two-faced hypocrite?

I'm not saying that you should be fired. I'm saying that Fox News has a BIG problem.

Just when was it that you turned to the dark side?

HAHAHA, great find man.

HAHAHA, great find man.


....O'Lielly doing actual journalism, real much as it pains me, I have to admit that was a helluva piece....

Whoa.....can't really wrap my brain around it....except to say that the elites let the truth come out when it can't affect their plans anymore....

Yes, ....great find DBLS.

What bugs me is...

"...the elites let the truth come out when it can't affect their plans anymore..."

What bugs me is that people don't seem to learn from this. Amazing!

Bill O / Charlie Sheen poll

Does anyone know the results of the recent Bill O poll to find out if Sheen's popularity will be damaged by help out the Loose Change guys?

Some interesting videos I

Some interesting videos I collected off google and youtube.
Think about how these videos compare with with WTC 1 and 2 and 7.

Botched demolition fails to fell Zip Feeds Mill tower
Demolition charges at the base of this 202-foot concrete structure start the collapse, but the structure halts the collapse.

This is what happens when the structure remains intact.

Building falls onto other buildings.
Why didn't this happen with WTC 1 and 2.

Another building falling onto a crane.
Entire building is intact until it hits the ground.
No building turning into powder before it hits the ground.

Look at these demolitions and then the WTC 7 demolition video below. Its like the same golf swing.

Here is the wtc 7 demolition

Another tower which falls to the side with all the structure still intact.

put the building into the basement.
Sounds like what they did with WTC 7.

Intel building - it pancaked.
Even with a controlled demolition, no powder and no complete collapse.

Maryland based Controlled Demolition Inc.
So, much precision they collapse an old bridge and it does not touch new bridge 10 feet away.

We have pictures of these guys.
We need to find them and talk to them.
They say WTC 7 is about to blow up.

Help with O'Reilly research

I was looking over some stuff on Operation Mockingbird, where the CIA employed domestic media personell to spread propaganda, on the wiki page it lists some of the "over 400 reporters were working for the CIA as part of Operation Mockingbird" according to Carl Bernstein and Bill O'Reilly, as well as Sean Hannity are on the list. I can't find the original article to use as a reference for this though. Has anyone seen it or have a link to it?

For those allowed to Digg..... I salute you....

Sander Hicks

Anyone interested in finding out about Sander Hicks should see this DVD - "Horns and Halos". He's in it. That was really good. When Sander cried at the end, I did too.

FCC Says 'No' to Cell Phones on Planes

FCC Says 'No' to Cell Phones on Planes

Apr 3 04:16 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Federal Communications Commission has officially grounded the idea of allowing airline passengers to use cellular telephones while in flight.

Existing rules require cellular phones to be turned off once an aircraft leaves the ground in order to avoid interfering with cellular network systems on the ground. The agency began examining the issue in December 2004.

Federal Aviation Administration regulations also restrict the use of cellular phones and other portable electronic devices onboard aircraft to ensure against interference with the aircraft's navigation and communication systems.

In an order released Tuesday, the FCC noted that there was "insufficient technical information" available on whether airborne cell phone calls would jam networks on the ground

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

Blackwater seeks to build 800+ Acre Military Training Site in Ca

Doesn't look like the "War on Terra" is going to be ending anytime soon.

Massive security contractor faces growing protest in rural California town over 842-acre base Miriam Raftery and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday April 3, 2007
Print This Email This

SAN DIEGO -- Potrero, California boasts a broad swath of meadowland that currently houses derelict chicken coops.

Surrounded by the Cleveland National Forest, the property boasts a former chicken ranch and includes an environmentally sensitive, protected agricultural preserve southeast of San Diego.

But if private security contractor Blackwater USA gets its way, this 850-strong community will soon host an 824-acre military training base, replacing the erstwhile chicken ranch with fifteen firing ranges and an emergency vehicle operator’s course the length of ten football fields.

A RAW STORY investigation has already led to the removal of one lawyer connected to the project. The inquiry has also discovered that California congressman and current presidential candidate Duncan Hunter -- who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee -- is a client of the firm, Blackwater USA, a massive US security contractor in Iraq.

Minutes of a planning meeting raise questions about whether Hunter was involved in lobbying for the project. At the Feb. 8, 2007 planning meeting, Vice President for Blackwater West Brian Bonfiglio said Hunter was one of the firm's clients.

"We talk with Duncan about many things," Bonfiglio said (emphasis in original).

Blackwater isn’t a stranger to controversy. In February 2004, families of four security contractors killed in Fallujah, who are suing the firm for information regarding their deaths, testified before the House Government Reform Committee.

The private security contractor has seen its federal contract revenues swell since Sept. 11. Six years ago, the firm raked in $250,000; today a single Iraq contract is valued at $300 million. Much of its work takes place in Iraq; the company was at one time responsible for the security of interim Iraq consul Paul Bremer. Blackwater now aims to expand operations by establishing several new training camps in addition to its headquarters in North Carolina.

Townspeople and environmentalists are squaring off against the company and public officials. The Potrero Planning Group approved the facility by a 7-0 vote in December – but since then more than half of the town's registered voters have signed a petition opposing the facility. Residents also say they are organizing a recall against members of the Planning Group who voted in favor.

Chairman of the Planning Group Gordon Hammers says he won’t reconsider the board’s decision.

"I think it’s good for the community," he said in a recent interview with the East County Californian. "It provides jobs.”

“It will improve the general economy of the community and as a result, improve property values," he added. Hammers contended that arguments against the project "have absolutely no rhyme or reason" and that some opposition is based on misunderstanding of the project’s scope.

In a later email to RAW STORY regarding questions about whether noise would disturb nearby residents, Hammers wrote, "If the good science shows that Blackwater's claims are true then I will be a proud supporter of a vital partner with law enforcement and the war on terror," he said in an e-mail. "If good science shows that their claims are not true then they will lose my support."

Internal documents

Internal documents acquired by RAW STORY show that the company had discussions about potential "fatal flaws" in the Potrero project in 2006.

Of most concern to the company seems to be the camp's effect on the local eagle population. On page two of an "Internal Working Draft," the authors identify that the eagle population in the area is a "potential fatal flaw."

This runs in direct opposition to public statements by the company. In the minutes in which Blackwater's Vice President admits the company has a contract with Hunter, he remarks, "Has anybody seen eagles?"

The firm also identifies a public versus private road "reduced potential to be a fatal flaw" and that plans for traffic had also "reduced potential fatal flaw."

The opponents

Jan Hedlun is the lone Potrero planner opposing the project. Elected in November, Hedlun didn’t vote at the December meeting because she says she wasn’t told she was eligible.

"I’m in the middle of a battle,” Hedlun said. "I am a lamb in a lion’s den. They’re pushing this through quicker than anything I’ve ever heard in my entire life."

Although the Potrero Planning Group has met monthly for several years, Hammers has refused to convene an April meeting, saying that only quarterly meetings are required and a quorum can’t be met.

When Hedlun pressed Hammers to schedule a meeting in order to allow public input, Hammers responded in an email acquired by RAW STORY, "Jan, get over it. There is not going to be a meeting."

The proposed Blackwater West training facility at Potrero would include 15 firing ranges for automatic and semi-automatic weapons and small caliber guns, as well as an emergency vehicle operator’s course the length of ten football fields -- 3,280 feet in length and 1,320 feet in width, according to a project description. The facility would also include bunkhouses and commando-type training facilities, ship simulators, and law enforcement and rescue safety training towers with rock-climbing walls and platforms.

Multiple San Diego County records indicate that "hazards" -- including “explosives” – “should” be stored in an "armory" at the site.

Blackwater West's Bonfiglio denied that the project would use explosives.

"No bombs,” he said. “No tanks, no heavy artillery."

Residents contend Blackwater’s proposal is being fast-tracked through the planning process under streamlined procedures recently adopted by San Diego County to expedite processing of major projects such as housing developments. A public "Notification of Preparation" hearing is scheduled for Apr. 5 at the San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use; citizens have until Apr. 27 to respond.

Some residents have voiced concern that the noise from the firing range will disrupt their lives. In response, Blackwater has proposed anti-skid pads and other measures to lessen noise from the driving course, which would operate for up to an hour and a half after sundown.

According to Bonfiglio, a helicopter pad would only be used for emergency landings and could benefit the community in the event of a medical emergency.

Conflict of interest

Residents also raise concerns over the role of San Diego County officials in expediting the project. An article in the San Diego Reader concluded that Potrero residents are being "ambushed" by "county bureaucrats marching alongside Blackwater USA."

Documents filed with the county indicate Blackwater officials have been meeting privately with Department of Planning and Land Use personnel since at least May of 2006. Members of the public in Potrero did not learn of the proposed project until Oct. 12 at the earliest. One whistleblower contends that failure to notify the public until late in the planning process may violate the California Environmental Quality Act; others allege that County planners may have violated the Brown Act, which mandates open meetings.

Environmentalist Duncan McFetridge questions why residents weren’t included in early planning.

"It is as close to collusion as you can get without actually being illegal,” McFetridge says. “I am convinced that one of the main reasons that Blackwater came to San Diego is that we are the capital of privatization where lines between private and public sectors is a total blur."

“In San Diego we don't have revolving doors,” he added, “we have tunnels between politicians and profiteers."

A spokesperson for San Diego Supervisor Dianne Jacob denied that Blackwater has received special treatment.

"That would be illegal," the employee said, declining to be named. The streamlined procedures, she said, were created after "ample public input," in response to complaints that development projects were taking four years for approval.

Jacob’s representative suggested that it would be inappropriate for the supervisor to speak with media regarding the Blackwater project, as she may have to vote on it eventually. Several community members noted, however, that Jacob had no such qualms about speaking out against a proposed high-rise Indian casino near her own ranch in Jamul.

One citizen opposed to the project revealed that Lori Spar—listed with the California Bar Association as an attorney with a law firm representing Blackwater on July 31, 2006 —has since unexpectedly surfaced as a land use/environmental planner for the Department of Planning and Land Use.

"She walked into our Mar. 1, 2007 Save Potrero meeting, representing the County," said former Potrero planner Carl Meyer.

After RAW STORY inquired about her ties to Blackwater, the Department of Planning removed her from the project.

Quality of life concerns

Area residents express alarm about disruption of their quiet, rural lifestyle and are skeptical of reassurances offered by Blackwater and local officials.

Dania Raum purchased property in Potrero three years ago "because it was so beautiful and peaceful."

Asked about the proposed project site, she replied, "It’s a secret, hidden valley. There are wetlands up there and all kinds of raptor birds." Golden eagles nest 3,500 feet north of the meadow, she observed.

Blackwater has offered to supply foraging materials for the eagles. But Raum scoffed at the idea of raptors foraging near a firing range.

"Right," she said. "Those eagles are going to be so gone... I believe we are being railroaded into this disaster."

"Can you imagine tire squealing and crash ‘em ups?” she added. “They are pushing this as a night time course ... so they will have machine guns going all day and cars going all night."

Raum doesn’t believe Blackwater's claims that noise can be muffled. "My son was way across the valley on a horse, and I could hear him coughing," she said. "It echoes for miles up there."

Hammers insists that the planning group is relying on scientific evidence that residents will not hear noise from the proposed facility. A recent noise test was canceled, reportedly due to liability concerns on the part of property owners.

San Diego County is now relying entirely on computer models to assess noise levels.

Safety and environmental concerns

Residents also cite safety issues involving excessive traffic on a winding access road measuring at some points just 20 feet wide. Critics cite high fatality rates on nearby Highway 94 and raise alarm over Blackwater’s plan to bus in local trainees and bring additional people from the airport on shuttles. Blackwater says its vehicles would be no larger than trucks that previously serviced the ranch.

Fire safety also concerns locals. Blackwater's Brian Bonfiglio asserted that the company proposed to local fire authorities a plan to not only shelter-in-place its own employees and facilities in the event of wildfire but also make Blackwater’s site a "safe haven for the community."

However, a February 2007 report on guidelines for wildland fire and fire protection prepared for the County describes shelter-in-place as a "last resort design concept.” Critics warn that the policy could prove a death sentence in the event of a firestorm similar to the nearby 2003 Cedar wildfire, where twelve people died as 300-foot high flames reached temperatures of thousands of degrees.

"This strategy has, to my knowledge, never been put to the test on a large scale during a major wildland fire," Joseph W. Mitchell, Ph.D. of M-bar Technologies and Consulting in Ramona, California wrote in response to the County’s proposal. "There are reasons to believe that it could lead to civilian and firefighter deaths and injuries as currently envisioned."

Duncan McFetridge, of Save Our Forests and Ranchlands, has raised additional concerns about the loss of potentially crucial wilderness areas, noting that national forest lands have shrunk from two million to 650,000 acres.

"Meadowlands are the biological heart of our forest," he said at a recent meeting. "We cannot lose our meadows without losing our forest."

Bonfiglio responded to criticisms on environmental grounds with the observation that no studies have been approved by San Diego County.

"There are people concerned about habitat and open space, but they are doing it based on no science, no information," he said.

McFetridge successfully blocked a proposed RV park in neighboring Descanso after citing a study by the University of California, Davis, tracking mountain lion movement. The Potrero valley proposed for Blackwater’s project is also frequented by deer and mountain lion, he said.

“This is a contest,” McFetridge remarked. “Blackwater USA is very good at what they do -- and Save Our Forests and Ranchlands is very good at what we do. This battle will be won or lost on land use issues."

Citizen activism

To win approval of the project, Blackwater must obtain a change in zoning on the property, which is currently zoned agricultural. McFetridge believes the project can be defeated on land use issues and cites data from radio-tracking of cougars that highlights the sensitive nature of meadowlands on the property.

Other groups have also joined the battle to block Blackwater’s camp.

"I will work hard to block this deal," said Raymond Lutz, head of Citizens Oversight Panels, a grassroots organization. "Blackwater is well known as one of the most egregious violators of human rights in the Iraq War ... We don’t need a `black-ops’ training camp in San Diego."

Bob Davis, a member of the San Diego Peace & Justice Coalition, fears that civil disobedience may be needed to halt the project, stating "We may have to put our bodies on the line."

Citizens are organizing opposition and public protests for the Apr. 5 meeting at the Department of Planning and Land Use.

"You can bet that Blackwater is lobbying the DPLU and its staff," Sierra Club land use committee chair Jeanette Hartman said. "Your only hope is to lobby back. Fight everything. If you don’t, they’ll just roll right over you here."

Correction: Due to an editing error, Lori Spar's status change was incorrectly identified. She was removed from the Blackwater project, not the planning board.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

online anti-petition to keep Rosie on the air

Sign the anti-petition now.

By adding my name to this anti-petition I wish to show you, Disney-ABC, that I fully support and enjoy watching The View with Rosie ODonnell.


Nice find! I signed and there were about 1700 sigs so far.



Front page it!


It's up on the front page.

You guys are fast around here!!!

Rosie's focus on WTC 7

I'm a bit worried that Rosie talks and writes as if the freefall disintegration of the Twin Towers were not a problem. I hope this is just a strategical move.

We've Been Neo-Conned_Historic Speech by Ron Paul

We've Been Neo-Conned_Historic Speech by Ron Paul (Alex Jones featured this speech a few weeks ago)

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, July 10, 2003

The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?...

Diggs and comment votes

Diggs and comment votes needed here;

Keep Rosie on Air!! Sign This Petition!!

New Rosie Poll

Check this out!

Fox News Distorts Poll
Caught Red Handed

Isn't that amazing. I'd like to see Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart and David Letterman all play this segment for laughs..

It's priceless.. :-D
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth”
~ George W. Bush


My Amazon order of DRG's new book "Debunking the Debunkers" has now been delayed untill JUNE!

Where is this book on the best sellers list?

and we thought the pre-order thing would help them to better account for the required number of copies.
Together in Truth!

There is a guy on the LC

There is a guy on the LC forum willing to pay 1$ for each 1$ pledged towards paying for a new Zogby poll.
Everyone who wants a new Zogby on 9/11 truth please go there!

Physical evidence

First of all, I agree with Jon that a wide focus is needed.

BUT I also think controlled demolition is easy to prove and is what will be decisive ultimately.

Today I had a long talk with a colleague at work. I had lent him a copy of the Finnished version of "9/11 Mysteries". (Have you seen the film, Jon?) And *that* far I had managed to go by showing him my WTC 7 page --

-- (read it, Jon?) and some collapse videos of WTC 7. He was now quite convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. We went on to cover many other false-flag attacks and other relevant subjects.

I once showed the "collapse" of WTC 7 to a trainee girl. She had difficulty believing that a building could go down like that. WTC 7 is a great place to start... and more. I'd actually like to say that it is the alpha and omega of 9/11 Truth.

CD easy to prove? Allow me to try.

1) An object in free fall (=falling in a vacuum) does not crush or displace anything - not even air.

2) An object dropped from the height of WTC 7 would have taken 5.95 seconds to fall freely to the ground in a vacuum.

3) WTC 7 came to the ground (through air!) in approximately 6.5 seconds.

4) This means that there was a bit more than 0.5 seconds time for the gravitational work of destroying the 80+ steel columns and other building mass on the 47 floors of the building. That is, 0.01 seconds per floor.

5) This is not long enough even in theory for gravitational destruction.

6) Ergo, the structural resistance was removed through explosives.

Feel free to correct me if there is something wrong in the above. I'm trying to come up with the most plausible formulations.

That WTC 7 was demolished is not a theory. It is a fact. One doesn't have to be a structural engineer to see that.

Well done Vesa

Nicely presented logical proof.

sigh... thank you Vesa

While you and I may not be nearly as smart as Mike Ruppert (cop AND rocket scientist--look out Bo Dietl!) we can at least agree that the controlled demolition of WTC7 with explosives is a self-evident and undeniable fact, not an opinion, theory, or religious creed--though I may not give up the robes and gilded pulpit... I kinda LIKE being the high priest of controlled demolition!


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


Thank *you*, RT

I'm glad to be one of your cardinals.

Whenever the defenders of the official theory have to talk about the WTC buildings, they try to avoid talking about how quickly they came to the ground. They just talk about why the buildings collapsed, and so on. I believe the near-freefall argument, with the kind of simple logical proof I presented, is one of the strongest approaches. Anyone defending the OCT should be demanded to explain how each of the three building could have gravitationally collapsed so quickly. The same question should be asked of science journals.


I don't think it's enough to mention that the buildings came down in near-free fall. What "near-free fall" means has to be clarified / exemplified to people (see my post above). I think this is something Jones et al should do when they appear on TV.

Good Points

While I respect Jon’s work, and prolific posting, I just simply have to disagree with him about controlled demolition. If we believe that planes were used on 9/11, Nico Haupt will label us with an insipid “plane hugger” status. Saying that certain activists are in the “church of controlled demolition” is similarly inappropriate.

The evidence that is most credible is evidence based on the laws of physics. They can’t be broken. This is why controlled demolition is the most compelling evidence. Statements and news accounts are always going to be less reliable than scientific laws. We can and have proven controlled demolition. Again—not saying there are many other areas worth pursuing I’m saying it’s the most devastating evidence.

By all means everyone is welcome to pursue whatever 9/11 evidence they want. But all evidence is not equal. I am just expressing my opinion. It is also my opinion that there is too much unnecessary divisiveness in this thread. Save your energy for the 9/11 perpetrators.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


















I'm repeating this response to Jon Gold here for clairty--

Where it is earlier, it might be so far right as to be unreadable. I appologize in advance if this is disturbing to other site members--but this NEEDS to get sorted:

" I request that you stay away from me, my site, my posts on and my blogs on"

Thanks for being honest. Now let me return the favor, as a fellow 911activist: it's this bit "my posts on and my blogs on" that makes you sound like a nutter.

Sorry, Jonny, just because you're feeling put upon and out of sorts DOES NOT give you the right to try to control what someone writes on a PUBLIC site where they have just as much right to contribute as you do. There is exactly ONE person who has that power and responsibility at 911Blogger, and it's NOT YOU. You have every right to decide you don't want to be friends anymore and cut off all off-site contact. But you have no right to tell her, or anyone else, not to PUBLICALLY respond to your PUBLIC posts on a PUBLICALLY accessable site. Those are the requests of a control freak jerk.

Grow up, Jonny. You've contributed alot to 911activism. Your face is known. You have influence and a online presence and all of that comes with a sodding RESPONSIBILITY. You've got personal problems with cass., you bloody well keep it out of 911activism. You do know the wee prats will glom onto anything for their debunk parties, don't you? Shite, James Bennet and Patrick Curley(I'm pretty sure it's "Curley", not "Curtiss" now) are probably laughing their arses off--"Look at the twoofers fighting among themselves! Aren't they a scream?"

Don't care? You bloody well need to care--because it's NOT about you. It's not about cass. It's not about RT. And its not about me. About helping people--and the minute you start pulling a "Nico" and stop being effective because you're more concerned about "acting out"instead of of reaching people--well, then maybe you SHOULD retire from the movement if that's where your head is at--at least until you can stop acting like a moaning ponce.

I'm going to check my email now--and GOD HELP YOU if I find some flaming tot there.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

BTW, Jon...

I haven't bothered to read your response earlier in the thread---because it's unreadable. Post it here if you like.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I think it's only fair to report

That as of yesterday's closed down thread the Powers that Be at 911Blogger have made it official--I may not respond to Jon Gold's posts and he may not respond to mine.

I want people to know that since I am now not allowed to contest anything that Jon Gold posts, the lack of criticism of his posts will not be by choice, so you may want to ask yourself "hmmmm, what would RT have to say about this?" :)

Actually if I see anything particularly egregious, or maybe even just as a matter of routine, I may post "responses to Jon Gold" at my website (


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


Fair enough....

And it drives home the point that only dz(and whomever he deputizes) has the power to say "don't respond to so-and so" on his PUBLICCLLY ACCESSABLE site, when there is cause to do so.

Cheers, everyone else, for bearing with us.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Enough already...

I don’t object to free speech and to expressing views. But there is a difference between doing this in a civil and uncivil way (i.e. name calling and sarcastic diatribes) resulting in endless flame wars.

Take your personal battles off this site. I don’t care about them, and I’m sure I speak for most of the people on this site.

Give the Admins a break. This is ridiculous.

hardly personal battles

they are profound disagreements that serve to help understand who posts on this site and why. presuming to speak for most of the people on this site on any issue is kind of absurd, but whatever makes you happy. Have you made similar requests to people who STILL engage Jim Fetzer in personal battles? Or will we find a few posts by you in that awful thread about space beams that has not been shut down?

Don't think it isn't obvious when you single people out, dude. It is, and if my "personal battles" were with Nico Haupt or Jim Fetzer instead of certain site pets I bet you wouldn't be making the comment above.


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


Civil vs. Uncivil.

Civil vs. Uncivil.

There is a huge difference. Be respectful to the other activists on this site. And no, calling something a "crapfest" is not civil.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

proving my point

Since you seem to single me out as if I was the instigator of any of those flame wars it's clear that you are actually less concerned with people respecting each other on this site than you are with posturing and defending your friends who are in fact as much or more in the wrong than I. If you hadn't noticed, there is a person on this site who sends nasty messages to other users AND resorts to sarcastic and very transparent veiled insults (by alluding to whomever he is attacking in what he considers a cute form of code I suppose) with no provocation.

The simple and obvious fact that you do not scold that person as you do me makes your intentions and sanctimonious attitude quite repellent. I think people can pretty much understand why some of the users here like to single me out--the fact is that there are cliques that have to compensate for their plainly dubious intentions by mutually supporting one another and ganging up on those who expose their BS.


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



A “personal battle” occurs when the moderators get fed up and ban you from posting in someone else’s threads/comments

An uncivil debate occurs when you call an entire thread “crapfest” just because YOU don’t care about the discussion is rude—insulting all of the posters who spent time making thoughtful comments in said thread.

Calling a thread “crapfest” after engaging in countless of your own is called hypocrisy.

Trying to pseudo-intellectualize your behavior as somehow being acceptable by referring to previous posts (that you just happened to call a “crapfest”) is called intellectual dishonesty. Trying to say it is acceptable by implying that I know the details of all previous "debates" on this site are also dishonest. I have criticized both you and Gold in this thread.

Sarcastic replies lose their “charm” after time #43.

Just because you think you are smarter than everyone else doesn’t mean that you get to shoot your mouth off.

Flame wars occur when posters ignore the subject and personally insult each other. You are likely participating in one if you have over 30 comments in one thread.

Be respectful of others no matter what their opinions are. If you have nothing intelligent or thoughtful to say, don’t say anything. Leave the “trolling” to the trolls and disinfo agents unless you are creating a resume for a position within that community.

These are my final words on this topic. I really have better things to do than to argue with you and create a divisive place here (which you have succeeded admirably at creating).

i wonder what your beef is

there's something about your outrage, and that of ohers who make a show of calling (quite selectively) for civility, that doesn't ring quite true.

is it really civility that concerns you? I wonder. I think calls for civility are often used by people who realize that their side is losing an argument--as if to say "hey that's enough--what are you trying to do, blow our cover?"

overt and blatant BS such as is offered up by no planers and dustification proponents is quite OK i've noticed to mock and ridicule. blatant disinfo serves a specific purpose, of course--no one is going to defend a straw man that is getting the tar beat out of them after all, and to the uninitiated this gives the illusion that the aggressor is a valiant and aggressive defender of truth.

the more subtle disinfo though is a very different beast. we know that the truth movement is infiltrated, and we also know that legitimate truthers are strengthened by feeling part of a supportive community. if I were planning a disinfo campaign of infiltration, I would make sure to protect the disinfo by appealing to that sense of camraderie that is such an appealing aspect of a site like this. if the disinfo is blatant, it should be rude and cause an unpleasant scene. If the disinfo is subtle it will deceive with kindness and with a pretense of taking the moral high ground.

it bears repeating that those intent on infiltrating a movement--the professionals--know every trick in the book, and are using them. whenever their work is threatened, they must react and respond to counter the perceived threat. a good way to know when you're on the wrong track is when everything is relatively easy, when you find yourself just going with the flow and not really getting anywhere. that happens when your actions are such that they present no threat to the would be controllers. it's easy to be lulled in this way because the rewards come in the form of kudos, pats on the back, and similar sycophantic reinforcement.

once you start touching nerves, though, and threatening to give away the game, things are made difficult for you. what better indication that you're on the right track?

the idea that above all we must maintain civility is therefore as attractive as it is flawed. it is only when we are free to engage each other without fear of offending that we can really divine the deeper motives at play. those who fear lively engagement and interaction perhaps worry, rightly, about their ability to keep up in such a contentious environment. When people start finding excuses at every opportunity to tell you to shut up, it's time to speak even more loudly I think.


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


Alternative scenario.

I understand what you're getting at here, RT, and it's certainly worthy of consideration. Subtle disinfo will be a different beast -- as opposed to the circus creatures they bring out for show.

However, what I think is equally likely is that because of the disparity in status here, Arabesque feels more comfortable criticizing you than the other party involved. He may be irritated just as much by the other person's posting behavior -- or not -- but not too many people are going to take that person on directly because of his perceived status in "the Movement." (The Colonel being a notable exception.)

Anyhoo, when threads get this long they're a real pain in the ass to follow...

the problem with baiting

is that it's actually very effective. The "flame war" that Arabesque has taken issue with, and that he seems in his comment above to think I should be quite ashamed of (implying that it was just me who was asked not to comment on certain people's posts) began when someone took issue with a low vote on their blog post and immediately posted a snide comment "hinting" that he believed me to be responsible for the low vote.

Whether or not I was is irrelevant--I had not posted any comments to the blog in question and the voting system is meant to be anonymous. Would anyone else in my position have allowed that to happen without responding?

Arabesque is simply trying to rewrite history here by making it seem like I'm the instigator when in fact quite the opposite is true--I'm being targeted for tag team action and being put in a lose-lose situation.

Anyway, thanks for the insight Casseia, though I think you may be overly generous... :)


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


I don't have

time to read through all of the posts on this thread. But to anyone arguing that stories about the U.S. government HELPING the hijackers is irrelevant or a red herring or a limited hang-out, please remember:

EVEN IF there were no real arab terrorists who were hijackers, the people who pulled off 9/11 had to set up patsies. They had to create a cover story. Alternatively, they had to use dupes or useful idiots. Or Western intelligence agents who thought they were on one mission and then were tricked into another mission. Please read Webster Tarpley's book, Synthetic Terror, on how this works.

If we can bust them on either helping real terrorists or on creating fake patsy identities, that destroys the credibility of the official story.

Personally, I believe that it is NOT either/or. I don't believe its controlled demo versus helping human hijackers to do it. Its both (and of course, or maybe planes were remote-controlled). See

And some people

focus more on physical evidence, while others focus more on the human angle. We need both.