Support 911Blogger


Kevin Ryan Presentation - Nation of Islam: "9/11: What really happened and why?"

I am so glad that people are getting this information

I am so glad that people are getting this information. Everyone deserves to know about 9/11. ...and often when people find out, they tell others. Flames here and there, this fire of truth keeps spreading. Eventually, we are going to have a real bonfire, and some of the culprits will wake up one day to find themselves in the hot seat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_seat

Our thanks to Gage and Ryan and others for getting the word out.

Thank You Kevin and Richard

You have opened doors of knowledge and reason to a community that understands the far too well the prejudice of false accusation. The Muslim community needs to understand that at least some of us do not buy into the prevailing story of the events. Through your presentation, everyone in attendance walked away with much more succinct and relevant information about the crimes than they could have hoped for.

And of course the victims' families who understand the reality of the events would be in support. Bob's statements have been echoed by a growing number of victims' family members over the years.

You and Richard have for years inspired so many of us to continue and refine how we present the factual information to the public, and it seems this is the reason for baseless attacks by jeffrey 'shure' hill, 'nor cal truth', michael 'snowcrash' de boer, 'zombie bill hicks', 'jimd3100', and 'kdub'. Throw in john albanese, and hossein turner for good measure and you have a small alienated group who act exactly like those who David Ray Griffin wrote a fascinating book about in response to cass sunstein's infamous memo.

Only hoping for more presentations where we can reach out not just to the Muslim community, but other ethnic communities who have lived through demonization by criminals in power.

Thank You again for a job very well done Kevin.

Snitchjacketing

FAIL.

Keep proving the points honest people make about you

Notice how michel 'snowcrash' de boer needs to attack the messenger with the very word that describes his tactics when called out. A very telling blog post can be found here about what michel 'snowcrash' de boer replied to above: http://www.snitching.org/2010/03/snitchjacketing.html

Notice also how michel 'snowcrash' de boer and jeffrey 'shure' hill continue to harp on the negative because people don't agree with their theories as to how important information about the crimes should be offered to groups they blame. This small handful of antagonists exemplifies the problems this movement faces as our findings become more accepted by the general public.

Thank the Good Lord for people like Kevin, Richard, David, Bob, Lorie, Patty, Monica, Kristen, and so many other honest researchers who continue to press for the truth. Through their dedication and the examples they set, the whole world benefits.

LeoAlpha"Male"

What's with writing people's names who have made their names available, but choose to use a screen name? Do you think you're being a "researcher" when you do this?

I think SnowCrash has shown the most intelligent reasoning around here and usually talks about ideas and logic, not people and personalities.

And please keep your lords to yourself, thank you.

Pull the Plug

This thread is sad to see, -pull the plug, and get some sleep. "Divide and conquer" is not what we need after ten years of hard, steady efforts. Pathetic.

Agreed 100,000%, 7man ...

Unfortunately, it appears that the moderators (myself included) were away from their desks when this thread began and immediately went off the rails (and I have only just begun reading it now over a week too late, it appears...mea culpa).

I would encourage everyone to carefully consider their respective roles in derailing what should have been a very interesting and lively discussion of Mr. Ryan's presentation, and not and endless replay of the various grudges the many factions within the 9/11 truth movement now seem preoccupied with.

If anyone wonders why you haven't seen me around here for months, this thread could be cited as a prime example.

Is anyone here even interested in finding out what actually happened on September 11, 2001 anymore? Or are you all so enamored with your own theories and so caught up in personalities that you are only interested in protecting your own positions, no matter what the cost?

Come on, brothers and sisters, can't we do better than this?

The truth shall set us free, and we still have a very long way to go to find out the truth regarding the events of September 11, 2001.

Love is the only way forward, and love requires patience, tolerance and humility....

[ I will see about closing this thread down for further comments]

Whoa, hold on a sec there Beta Male

Wow, I'm baffled. Do I know you? What baseless accusations are you referencing. In fact, you need to provide quotes with such extreme snitch-jacketing. Oh and you assume the family members are happy that 9/11 truth is present in circles of terrible disgusting racism? Well I give the family members more credit than you. In fact, how dare you assert such a baseless claim? If people here think it's ok to speak at these kinds of events, then we differ in more ways then I knew. We are talking full on , anti-jew garbage party! Kevin Ryan if you want to be a part of this , every reasonable adult person here should want nothing to do with you. More responses to other audacious childish claims on this thread to come...OY VEY (do you hate that phrase, your meshugena). Sorry, but you can't scare jews away from 9/11 truth. You are the schmutz of the 9/11 truth movement and fortunately, easily cleaned up with some simple good info.

No anti-semitism thanks

.. either real or fake

for example, "kdub" writes: "full on , anti-jew garbage party".

I don't see any of that around here, so why bring this slur into the conversation?

Let's get this straight here

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-17/pivotal-911-petition-storms-canadian-parliament#comment-255391

Look at the behavior of this group. Are you accusing me of anti-semitism?

No response?

No response?

Thank Goodness there are many more honest researchers than ...

the likes of the detractors we see in this thread.

Thank Goodness there are bonafide researchers like Kevin, Richard, Graeme, Neils, Tony Szamboti, Ted Walter, Dennis McMahon, John Kirby, etc. who are focused on our common goals in exposing the suspects of the crimes.

Thank Goodness there are family members like Bob, Lori, Michele, Patty, Kristen, Valerie, Jane, Monica, etc. who continue to press for truth.

Thank Goodness there are survivors, and first responders, and scientists, and military officers, and rescue workers, and residents of NYC, etc. who speak truth to power.

Thank Goodness there are organizations like Consensus 911 and NYC CAN, and campaigns like 'Put AE911Truth Questions in the Spotlight' and 'Remember Building 7'

Thank Goodness we will prevail in our tireless efforts since we have to. Our very survival depends on it.

Thank Goodness unsavory characters such as 'snowjob', 'shure', john albanese, and hoz turner, and only a handful of others, are marginalized enough that all they have left is for their nonsense to mimic the likes of screw loose change or the jref forums.

Thank Goodness the vast majority of us want to save countless lives in the future by reaching out with the facts of the case to as many people as possible. The victims as well as every single one of us who have been affected by the crimes deserve the justice and accountability we are all working hard to reach.

Tony Szamboti

I wonder what he thinks of all this. Mr. Szamboti? You reading this? If so, please let us know your thoughts.

I think there's some disagreement about whether extreme religious conditioning, among other things of course, had a bearing on the events of 9/11.

Thanks in advance.

Testimony Under Oath

Under oath means you can get in trouble for lying, right?

Here is some testimony that might help everyone think about what's been happening in this world for quite a while now and how that relates directly to the underlying question about Islamic extremism and militarism being supported and used as a proxy fighting force in resource wars. The problem is that, after these weirdos do our bidding, we don't control 100% of what they do. And they don't really like us, for some of the blow back type reasons you've probably heard.

They exist, are connected to intelligence, and have their own agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoTKoNUg8ms

I'd appreciate any feedback to this evidence.

Thanks!

The only thing you are working to reach appears to be division

So you finally return after days of throwing out a bold baseless accusation with no quotes. And you repeat your garbage with no proof. No response to the above statements about your disgusting accusations.

-You expose the impotence of those who fear real discussion.
-You help the criminals get away with murder as you throw out your slurs.
-The high horse you are attempting to saddle is crippled by fraud.
-And no, you are not working hard to save lives, you are endangering others by protecting the criminals from real hard evidence and questions.

Thank Goodness logical thinkers see right through your substance-free banter.

Notice the negativity in light of the names mentioned

Notice kdub's banal response attacks the messenger as opposed to acknowledging the tireless efforts of the honest people written above.

'kdub', as well as 'snowjob', 'shure', a few others, engage in not just projection, as exemplified a number of times in this thread, and very many others, but also in hypocrisy it seems.

Do tell us who is 'crippled' by fraud' kdub ...

Ideas?

Do you really think name calling helps?

Please try writing a comment about ideas, instead of people.

For instance, do you think extreme religious conditioning/behavior had any bearing on the events of 9/11?

An idea would be to get behind the honest researchers

Kevin Ryan has done more for justice and accountability any given day than the like of 'snowjob', 'sure' and a handful of others who do nothing but attack the legitimate members of our community.

Notice how 'kbub' can't even reply to his 'crippled by fraud' remark. What these jokers are doing is providing example after example of what is wrong with the movement.

I. along with the vast majority of us, stand alongside the likes of Kevin and Richard and the all the others I mentioned because through their hard work, we will be able to reach the goals we strive for.

Thank Goodness for Kevin, Richard, and a wealth of others - all those who help our mission - by consistently demonstrating the focus and the discipline we desperately need to succeed.

And shame on the few who always complain, opine, and attempt do derail our progress. We are on to you, and we will not stop until this crime is thoroughly solved.

Leo

Where's my coffee?

Leo, where's my coffee

Surely this type of condescending, patronising comment counts as ad hominem?

You can tell a lot about people's characters by the way they speak to others, even in jest.

I'm deeply moved

By your incorruptible concern for decency on this thread.

This thread has been an eye-opener for a lot of us ...

As leo said:

Kevin Ryan has done more for justice and accountability any given day than the like of 'snowjob', 'sure' and a handful of others who do nothing but attack the legitimate members of our community.

Notice how 'kbub' can't even reply to his 'crippled by fraud' remark. What these jokers are doing is providing example after example of what is wrong with the movement.

I. along with the vast majority of us, stand alongside the likes of Kevin and Richard and the all the others I mentioned because through their hard work, we will be able to reach the goals we strive for.

Thank Goodness for Kevin, Richard, and a wealth of others - all those who help our mission - by consistently demonstrating the focus and the discipline we desperately need to succeed.

And shame on the few who always complain, opine, and attempt do derail our progress. We are on to you, and we will not stop until this crime is thoroughly solved.

nice repost, so let's break it down

We are on to you

What exactly are you (Simple Truth's) and Leo Alpha Male 'on to?' Please clarify with actual proof.

Leo posted a claim that myself and others are part of DRG's theorized Sunstein infiltrators (before any of those mentioned had even posted on this thread):

http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-02-29/kevin-ryan-presentation-nation-islam-911-what-really-happened-and-why#comment-25...

Since Leo and Simple truths appear confused, that comment was 1 example of the fraud I was referencing.

Some other examples include the claim that no muslims were involved in the attack. It's just not true. There were some radical Muslims involved. It has been linked to heavily throughout this thread. It doesn't matter what kind of muslims you think they are. Stating false claims (and partially true is still false!) as if they are fact is a fallacy. It hurts our cred. So does claiming that the cell phone calls were faked, or that there was no plane at the pentagon.

But now I have digressed for you Simple Truth's and Leo, because the burden of proof falls on you. Perhaps you all would care to address the MAIN topic of this thread and the real reason some of us are upset. Perhaps you could provide me proof as to your (Simple Truths) comment above where you misread my words and accused me of anti-semitism. Do you have any proof of this or that I others you mentioned are paid infiltrators as you and Leo feel so confident to assert?

Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage speaking at this event are endorsing Farracon and the NOI's cultish racist views. They are doing so in public for the world to see. Kev and Gage have not stated anything to the contrary. Both have not denounced farracon's audacious, dangerous claims.

Do you simple truths or leo disagree with the statement, Farracon is a notorious racist?
Do you agree with Farracon's behavior and statements?
Do you think Farracon and the NOI are positive political groups in the public eye which would be a good thing to have 9/11 truth attached to?

Will you please address SOME of the questions I and others you baselessly call names in this thread have addressed to YOUR specific concerns?

Show "Unproven Mainstream Propaganda (The Muslims Did It)" by Aidan Monaghan

Testimony Under Oath

Under oath means you can get in trouble for lying, right?

Here is some testimony that might help everyone think about what's been happening in this world for quite a while now and how that relates directly to the underlying question about Islamic extremism and militarism being supported and used as a proxy fighting force in resource wars. The problem is that, after these weirdos do our bidding, we don't control 100% of what they do. And they don't really like us, for some of the blow back type reasons you've probably heard.

They exist, are connected to intelligence, and have their own agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoTKoNUg8ms

I'd appreciate any feedback to this evidence.

Thanks!

No need for smear and paranoia

The phrase "We are onto" (in my opinion) refers to awareness of some people's hysterical, wordy attempts to "derail progress".

That's about it.

No need to get paranoid.

As for all these fraudulents smears that are flung at me that I am racist and anti-semitic - they are not worth replying to.

As I have already stated, race and religion are of no particular importance to me. I judge people on their levels of integrity, insight and across-the-board non-racism (against white, black, Muslim, Jew, Christian etc).

Request for feedback

@Simple Truths:

I would like to politely ask for your thoughts about the sworn testimony Sibel Edmonds has given regarding the US Govt ties to and support for militant schools with a religious pretext, to be used in resource wars for the supposed benefit of the US/NATO allies.

Specifically, does it affect your thoughts about the possibilities of people with militarized religious delusions having participated in the crimes of 9/11?

And, do you think the 9/11 wars are resource wars?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Here's the testimony, in case you missed it earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoTKoNUg8ms
(less than 6 minutes)

Your post is an eye opener for me...

Simple truths, you say: "like of 'snowjob', 'sure' and a handful of others who do nothing but attack the legitimate members of our community."

Nothing! This is ad hominem and uncalled for. To say that SnowCrash and Shure, whose names you apparently are too rude to spell correctly, have done nothing but attack the legitimate members of our community, is absurd.

As examples I draw your attention to the tremendous detailed effort SnowCrash put in to refuting the blatently misleading Rock Creek Free Press article. http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-27/911bloggercom-accused-leading-911-truth-site-working-other-side#comment-240301

and the great effort put in by Shure to get interviews of witnesses to help with the damaging slanted witness interviews others were providing.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/forum/1624331/

If I was moderating this I would have you banned.

Mr Legge, those are not my words...

... but the words of LeoAlphaMale.

I re-posted his posting. The misspelling and sentiment are his - not mine.

If you look you will see that I mentioned his name and use quote marks to clarify that.

Ironically, you would have me banned. But if you read all my posts carefully you will see that I am YOUR supporter.

I support the work of yourself and Kevin Ryan.

I have been astonished to come on this blog and be called

(a) an anti-Semite
(b) a racist
(c) a rude person who needs to be banned.

In reply to (a) - my beloved grandather was a sephardic Jew - I have never hated or been rude to Jewish people in my life

(b) I am a mixed race person - difficult to be racist when your family comes in different shades of pink and cappuccino!

(c) I quote someone else and get blamed for his sentiment and spelling.

In the meantime I have alerted academics in our local university to your (Frank Legge) and Architects and Engineers work. We hosted the screening of "Blueprint" at a film festival in five major cities in my country and I wrote press releases for the media. A lot of people in our corner of the world found this very interesting.

The Truth movement is far bigger than 911Blogger. The world is much bigger than America. There are a lot of people out here in the world who are sceptical and becoming more aware.

I have read 911 Blogger for years without commenting.

I chose to comment on the hysterical reaction to Gage and Ryan addressing a Muslim audience.

The result has been (a) - (c).

The people who shouted me down and accused me of racism/anti-semitism were the people whose names you mention.

The fact that I was shouted down as a racist/anti-semitic..

.. means I must have pushed a button.

My point was that America claims it is a free country with free speech so why should Gage and Ryan not feel free to address whomoever?

What is the WORST that can happen if Gage and Ryan address NOI? No-one's died yet.

Gather 2000 people in a hall and you will find KKK supporters, racists, sex addicts, liars, hypocrites and fundamentalists seated inbetween the soccer moms and pops. The world is full of people with skewed views. Does that mean we must pre-censor audiences and only address the purest of the pure?

Thank God Nelson Mandela didn't insist on only speaking to the pure. If he hadn't talked to and communicated with apartheid's chilling racists - apartheid would still be alive and kicking in S.A.

I think it is racist and condescending in itself, to imply that every single member of a thousand-strong black audience attending a free speech event is an evil, hating racist.

I believe in hearing people out. I believe in dialogue and negotiation.

But just saying that -- just implying that people are free in a democracy to listen to Farrakhan -- seems to annoy the hell out of some people.

This is why I have attracted such ugly flak.

I have DONE nothing. But clearly I have SAID stuff -- it's just words in the ether, for heaven's sake -- that people would prefer I didn't say.

Freedom of expression, anyone?

Why the downvotes?

Just curious:

Do you down voter's support the racist comments from Farracon I linked to?

Question

Do you think extreme religious conditioning/behavior had any bearing on the events of 9/11?

Progress!

LeoAlphaMale said..."Kevin Ryan has done more for justice and accountability any given day than the like of ....."

Absolutely! I didn't think the Toronto hearings could be topped but by golly he did it with his presentation to the Nation Of Islam! No Muslim involvement for sure. And when those TEM and FTIR tests finally come in -WHOA...look out world!

"And shame on the few who always complain, opine, and attempt do derail our progress"

Yes, shame on them that don't follow lockstep with the REAL truthers. By the way it would be good to promote all our progress why don't you do that? One example could be my participation in The Sept 11th Research and Discovery Project, where I have volunteered. Did you donate yet?
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9649
They Can't do it without a pilot......

Jimd3100Stein CON
Volunteer suicide Pilot of The Sept 11th Research and Discovery Project
Co-Director of Total MIHOP Warriors Alliance

Jim301Stein

Jimd3100Stein CON
Volunteer suicide Pilot of The Sept 11th Research and Discovery Project
Co-Director of Total MIHOP Warriors Alliance

What on earth compels you to write this on so many of your posts? My psychology background leads me to wonder why you have this compulsion to re-state this information set every time you post.

Credentials

Are you questioning my credentials as a Real Truther??

Jimd3100Stein CON
Volunteer suicide Pilot of The Sept 11th Research and Discovery Project
Co-Director of Total MIHOP Warriors Alliance

@ LeoAlphaMale: Agree 100%

"A few others, engage in not just projection ... but also in hypocrisy it seems."

Many of the crew you cite seem to allege the WTC demolitions were inside jobs, but the Muslims did the rest.

Note the inevitable divide and conquer effect of this position.

In any event, I doubt the afore mentioned even believe what they say.

We need a coffee boy

Over @ Truth Action.

Somebody who brings coffee & leaves the thinking to others.

You seem like our guy. Whaddayasay?

1 Minute Response Time!

Stalking the comment section again SC?

I'm online

... and when you're online, you can actually respond quite quickly, unless you're a lethargic type of person, like George W. Bush in a Florida classroom.

What.... Am I supposed to bestow a pittance of five minutes to keep you comfortable?

And my response time wasn't one minute, you're paranoid again. It's pathological.

Ha, ha, ha...

"Am I supposed to bestow a pittance of five minutes to keep you comfortable?"

Now that is funny :)

Yeah, whatever!

When the truth comes out, your "bonafide researchers" will be looking for a place to hide :)

Real Truthers

I'm with you LeoAlphaMal, you and Aiden are real truthers. Us Real Truthers have to stick together, there is to much of this nonsense in 9-11 truth. We need to find out what really happened at the Pentagon, and Shanksville, and the WTC. Which is why I am putting my life on the line for the Real 9-11 truth movement. Will you consider a small donation for my Flying lesson fund in support of The Sept 11th Research and Discovery Project?

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9649

Jimd3100Stein CON
Founder of Citizens Over Nazis
Discoverer of the Fly Under at the pentagon on 9/12
Co-Director of the Total MIHOP Warriors Alliance
Volunteer suicide pilot of the Sept 11th Research and Discovery Project
Endorsed by LoLz for 9/11 Truth
http://www.facebook.com/pages/LOLZ-for-911-Truth/101632179914102?sk=info

Kevin Ryan: " We can begin by

Kevin Ryan: " We can begin by stating unequivocally that Muslims did not attack the United States on 9/11."

That doesn't help anyone except the criminals responsible for the attacks!

We were attacked that day not because "They hate us for our freedoms", but because of reasons Kevin touched upon which include: the occupation of Muslim land, propping up of proxy dictators and blind support for Israel's foreign policy towards Palestinians.

I get the impression Kevin doesn't think there were any hijackers on those planes that day.

Kevin do you think the hijackers were fake? What about the phone calls? Were they fake? Do you even think a plane hit the pentagon?

Jeffrey Hill

Jeffrey Hill, I’m sorry that I had to delete you on FB but you were acting too weird. Without my permission you added me as an administrator to the group you created called “The Truth Movement”. You also could not provide a reasonable explanation for your activity there as a friend of Fetzer and the Web Fairy, and for why you were regularly posting on their FB pages. Your claim that you did not like or respect them but were just spying on them didn’t make sense and was not a good sign.

I haven’t responded to your provocations since then because I don’t have a lot of time to help you with your fears and your tendency to fly off on extreme tangents. And you have not demonstrated, in the short time that you have been involved with 9/11 truth, that you know all the answers as your provocations imply.

In the future, please try to spend your time and energy helping us answer some of the many unanswered questions instead of just shouting down others. Clearly you have your own views on the particulars, as everyone does, but if you are respectful people will listen.

Please provide your explanation for how Muslims disabled the US air defenses on 9/11. After that I’d be glad to know your views on how Muslims made our national leaders stop doing their jobs on 9/11. And since I know you are a proponent of the demolition theory, let us know your explanation for how Muslims put explosives in the WTC.

Actually I thought it was

Actually I thought it was weird that you were suspicious I might be a cointel pro agent or something at the time you are referring to. I told you in an email l like to keep my friends close and my enemies closer. You and Fetzer both defriended me right after that :)

Anyway, I have long since blocked WF and Fetzer, Blasamo, Ranke, etc.. . Although, it looks like you're going down the same path as them with your fake hijacker theory.

Eventhough you had time to present people with a flase narrative of our facekbook encounter, you didn't bother to take the time to answer any of the simple questions I asked you in my above comment. When you find some time out of your busy schedule to do more reseach into 9/11, I hope you find some answers to the questions I asked you.

I'm interested in the truth. The theories you presented to the Nation of Islam did not help the truth.

False Dilemma Fallacy

"Please provide your explanation for how Muslims disabled the US air defenses on 9/11. "

Not being impeded from flying a plane into a building doesn't make you an innocent man.

"After that I’d be glad to know your views on how Muslims made our national leaders stop doing their jobs on 9/11."

Here we go again.

I watched Farrakhan's entire speech. It was a harrowing experience. He did say you claimed very explicitly and specifically that no muslims were involved in 9/11. I guess my prediction was correct. Who was it again who asked me for evidence of this in the other thread? Step forward please.

A new angle is that must not have been muslims because they misbehaved, which would be a fine example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

And lay off Jeff, Kevin. If you're not stabbing Duffy & Nowosielski in the back essentially because they're too "LIHOP" for you, you've got some pressing business to attend to w.r.t. Millette's forthcoming published rebuttal of the Active Thermitic Material paper. We already know Millette's findings and conclusions, they're being discussed at JREF as we speak. My prediction was correct there, too.

Michel de Boer

Michel de Boer (Snowjob),

I'm certain that your pretentious opinion of yourself continues to hold up under limited scrutiny, and that all your "predictions" come true in your own mind. But your love of the simple-minded, racist official conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny.

As for Jeffrey Hill, who claims that his spying on people was a false account, I would remind him that he admitted just that on 2/12/11 to a large email list when others (not me) were calling him a "double agent".

Finally, the non-replication that a certain NIST and Bush DOJ contractor has recently done is not likely to help you retain your cherished beliefs.

In the future, please try to think of the victims of the 9/11 Wars and do something useful for the cause instead of thinking only about your own egomaniacal dreams.

Shame on you, Kevin!

But your love of the simple-minded, racist official conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny.

If I went to court to convict people of 9/11 I would have Michel on my side, miles and miles ahead of you, Ryan. If you don't understand Michel's logic and reason by now, I guess I should not be surprised.

I don't think you take too much time to read anything other than what you write: Tunnel vision.

Your judgememnt has fallen downhill.

And you bring the 9/11 family members into this? Did you ask the Jersey Girls about going and talking with Farrakhan?

I can't believe you just brought them up, to try and silence critiques of your completely baseless, overly-short and simplicated intro to try and buy the NOI audience:" Muslims did not do 9/11"

Shame on you.

Shame on you, Brian Romanoff

"Did you ask the Jersey Girls about going and talking with Farrakhan?"

Yes, actually I did but not all of them. And I received support for making the presentation. I also received strong support from several of the most well-known 9/11 truth leaders. You would be surprised how many people disagree with you.

I did not bring the 9/11 family members into this, you did. And you continue to falsely claim that you represent them when you obviously do not. I brought the victims of the 9/11 Wars into this -- you know, including the millions of dead Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11.

‎"I know that the Muslims did not set those bombs within the towers." -- Bob McIlvaine, father of WTC victim Bobby McIlvaine

You did say victims

I had read 'victims families', apologies.

But the point is still the same. 9/11 is more than "bombs within the towers," as you point to Bob's quote. Both Michel and I support Bob and the demolitions scenarios.

You are trying to make it sound different. We also support Kevin Fenton. Have you read his book yet?

I am sure you would be amazed at the amount of quality research in his book, Disconnecting the Dots.
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-01-04/new-book-kevin-fenton-disconnecting-dots-how-911-was-allowed-happen

Bombs in the towers indeeed. But, the entire framework of 9/11 depended on getting people into our country, so they could get on planes and hit targets in the US. Of course, then the bombs in the towers went off.

This is not a controlled demolition movement, to quote Jon Gold. Please consider reading Disconnecting the Dots. I am sure it will help us all build some bridges together.

To say Muslims did not do 9/11 is simply too simple, and innacurate. To say the CIA and other agencies were not involved in the crime is also innacurate. 9/11 is not a one sided coin.

Yeah, people disagree with me on going to Farrkhan, and others agree. I was happy to meet someone last night who knoew Malcolm X and supported my decision. He was at the SF9/11truth meeting in Berkeley. He also said it's difficult, and I agree, because Farrakhan can speak some truths. But we know the mix of rat poison contains some food. Hey, whats done is done. I made my stand, I have my principals. Yours are different, same with Richard.

I was not the only person to leave AE, I'm sure you know that, someone who was much more important than myself left AE as well.

Others at AE agreed with me too, however did not care to make an issue out of it for reasons I won't go into.

If this had been the only thing that I disagreed with at AE, it might not have been enough to make me leave, you know.

I will also add that I am happy to hear you contacted some or one of the Jersey Girls before going to Farrakhan. If you had said that a while ago I might not hav been down your throat so much.

But again, I still have my own prinicpals.

neat.

This is why I don't trust a single 9/11 truth scientist, and would advise anyone on the fence to be careful where they place their eggs. Time and again they have failed us with appalling judgement.

Re: love for racist OCT

Kevin Ryan said: "But your love of the simple-minded, racist official conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny."

Okay, so I guess your love for a racist, anti-semitic, hate mongering, UFO chasing, rambling sociopath cult leader suspected of involvement in the murder of Malcom X does stand up to scrutiny?

Puerile epithets, playing the race card, the victim card and the effluvium of snitchjacketing... that's quite a feat.

I've always protested against the "nanothermite was not made in a cave in Afghanistan" analogy. Why? Because it's blatantly racist. Some of these hijackers were highly trained academics. But... That doesn't rhyme with the American exceptionalist superiority complex trotted out to underscore the unlikelihood of hijackers manufacturing nanothermite.... using a cave man analogy.

Still have any doubts how this meme is motivated by racism and ignorance of Afghanistan? Here:

Planet Of The Apes Fallacy

The suggestion that hollywood guerillas/terrorists could capture and fly jet air liners into buildings.

"BMAC", 2011-08-14

Apes, he says.

Many truthers proudly boast how these inferior beings could never have accomplished what the OCT claims they accomplished. The quote above reveals the mentality behind the belief.

Yeah, my batting average is pretty good, Kevin. Too bad you've become a true believer instead of a true researcher.

Something else

I have no love for the "OCT". I find it insultingly false. But outside of Northwoods, cell phone fakery and controlled demolition, there's a whole universe of research out there, and it's gotten so little attention due to the domineering nature of the aforementioned, that rejection of any of the aforementioned is equated with being either a "Sunstein infiltrator" (a non-existent job, as "Sunstein" is neither an institution nor a director of intelligence) or an "OCT-defender".

Yes, I will defend the "OCT" where it is true and I will attack it where it is false. Makes no difference to me how many "stick it to the man"-bonus points I get for inventing preposterous canards (e.g. plane swap, voice morphing) which wildly implicate all sorts of alphabet agencies.

Labels

Kevin Ryan said..."But your love of the simple-minded, racist official conspiracy theory does not hold up to scrutiny."

Neither does your honesty....

"The second goal of the book is to propose that the partial release of documents by the 9/11 Commission in the last few years has answered all the unanswered questions about the attacks." K Ryan
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-29/playing-get-saudi-arabia-free-card

The second longest chapter of this book is called Unanswered Questions....
PAGE 363
http://books.google.com/books?id=_3Khbl9ODkEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+eleventh+day&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2DVRT9WLCebh0QHLq_TODQ...

But I digress

"When the State Department had taken away his security detail after Clinton came into office, Bandar had protested vociferously, arguing he needed it because Saddam had taken out a contract to have him killed. Also, Saddam had tried to assassinate his favorite U.S. president, George H.W. Bush, while he was visiting Kuwait after leaving office in April 1993. So the prince couldn't wait for the U.S. bombs to fall." page 137
http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Messenger-Americas-Tangled-Relationship/dp/0802716903

"So the prince couldn't wait for the U.S. bombs to fall."

Bandar Bush wanted Muslims killed. No one on this forum has advocated that.

"Cheney replied, "Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast."

"The problem would be if Hussein survived. The Saudis needed assurance that Hussein was going to be toast. Bush said, "The message [from Cheney that] you're taking is mine, Bandar."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Plan_of_Attack_Dick_Cheney.htm

Hussein wasn't the one funneling money to the hijackers it was Bandar and the Saudis.. But you don't want to talk about that.

BTW the Saudis want us to spend our money and spill our blood going after Iran to. It's not just Israel. Some of us want our country back.

Since you want to label some of us "racists" for exposing the 9-11 cover up, and you want to assist a treasonous turd like Bush in keeping their cover up going, one could label you a traitor.

I'm an amateur researcher, but I can see the obvious.

I also tried to write about it, not to say I can write well either.

Recently Deceased Crown Prince Sultan and his son Bandar “Bush” Epitomize Highly Questionable Saudi 9/11 Connections

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-10-31/recently-deceased-crown-prince-sultan-and-his-son-bandar-bush-epitomize-highly-quest...

Yes

Yes a good write up. As is pointed out....

"Prince Bandar worked with CIA Director Bill Casey to fund covert CIA operations with Saudi petrodollars."
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-10-31/recently-deceased-crown-prince-sultan-and-his-son-bandar-bush-epitomize-highly-quest...

This is part of the "30 year conspiracy" mentioned by Bob Kerry. The Intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the U.S,. worked together to defeat the USSR. They used "freedom Fighters" as they were called at the time. In actuality, they were manipulated brainwashed religious fanatics. Their religion was Islam. Now they "hate freedom". That's called propaganda. We're all pawns on the grand chess board. It's about time we got smarter. Those "freedom fighters" are not the only ones being manipulated.

I don't know who wrote the following, but it looks like it came from your area. The cover up is crumbling....

http://www.sf911truth.org/monographs/The%20Surveilled%20Communications%20of%20Khalid%20al-Mihdhar%20%5B6-page%5D.pdf

Nice!

I know the guy who wrote that, he is a great researcher. He gave me a copy of that article yesterday.

I didn't know he posted stuff online, as he likes to remain annonymous - mostly.

Good to see it get more attention though.

Evidence of entrapment of Muslims

There's plenty of evidence for entrapment, stings and patsies.

Consider all these Muslim-framing entrapments or 'stings' conducted by FBI - eg. underwear/Christmas tree/ink cartridge bombers. Can one say "Muslims' are responsible in these frame-ups where FBI 'grooms' the alleged perp, makes suggestions, supplies him with weapons and points him in the right direction?

Ryan's questions are pertinent.

- How did foreign Muslim paralyse multiple layers of US defence ?
- How did foreign Muslims get into US air security?
- How did foreign Muslims conduct a textbook implosion, such as WTC 7?
- How did foreign Muslims persuade US officials to give them visas and let them in?

Answers to questions

#1 "How did foreign Muslim paralyse multiple layers of US defence ?"

Deliberately allowing criminal activity to proceed does not mean the people doing the activity are innocent.

#2 "How did foreign Muslims get into US air security?"

Deliberately allowing criminal activity to proceed does not mean the people doing the activity are innocent.

#3 "How did foreign Muslims conduct a textbook implosion, such as WTC 7?"

They didn't, and they don't need to. Read this.

#4 "How did foreign Muslims persuade US officials to give them visas and let them in?"

Deliberately allowing criminal activity to proceed does not mean the people doing the activity are innocent.

There, pertinent questions answered. It's not like these questions have been explained and elucidated >50 times before, yet people seem to want to stubbornly cling to the false dilemma.

Muslim fanatics were involved on 9/11 and they hijacked planes. That's what the facts say and the evidence suggests. Denial of facts is anathema to a "Truth" Movement.

Why would anybody want to play dumb and insinuate that rejection of Northwoods must somehow mean acceptance of the 9/11 commission and the NIST reports?

And if I believed the official story was true, I'd say so too. I wouldn't hesitate one second. But that can never happen, because I already know for a fact that there was a criminal cover up. But there's much more than that going on.

I just don't believe the "planes were swapped", the "calls were faked", the "pilots were agents put in place via airline roster hocus pocus at the last minute", or any of that other poppycock.

At the NOI, telling the crowd there's no side to 9/11 which involves islamic extremism is obviously met with approval. Farrakhan is one of those package deal conspiracy theorists: chemtrails, UFOs, Jews rule the world, the more the merrier. Some of the things he says may be true, but he eventually drops the turd in the punch bowl and invalidates his own performance. Plus he's got quite the shady past.

Have you seen his entire speech? It's very important that people watch it in its entirety, to fully appreciate the apoplectic hysteria his speech degenerates into with an added power consolidation ritual, publicly humiliating his inferiors. Typical cultist brainwashing. In the middle of it, he calls out Gage and Ryan.

What the hell was the A&E board thinking? And now the people who say something about are the problem? CIA agents even (See "LeoAlphaMale" above)? Hilarious. I'd like to say some things to these people and it's all bleep.

answer to snowcrash

You write: "Deliberately allowing criminal activity to proceed does not mean the people doing the activity are innocent"

Agreed. And deliberately allowing criminal activity to proceed DOES mean that one is guilty.

When Mr X deliberately disables the security alarm at the factory warehouse in order to allow access to criminals of one or other stripe - Mr X is guilty.

If Mr X lubricates and turbo-charges the criminals' crime by the addition of powerful, high-tech tools, one could argue MR X is even more guilty.

Whoever the criminals are - who enter through the wide-open door and are offered sophisticated tools and means to carry out the job - you can be sure they are inadequate and flawed.

Why does America encourage these people, contact them, fill them with ideas, groom them, suggest actions, supply them with equipment and point them in the right direction?

Then scream loudly, via the media, that it's "Under Attack!!!!" and needs the world to sign up to more aggressive and self-serving foreign policy manouevres?

Pasties are not innocent. They are bit players in a larger narrative, which is in desperate need of scrutiny in the face of the media's dereliction of duty.

Agreed..

There's little in there I disagree with, if anything.

The behavior of the US government before, during and after 9/11 is absurd, and the al-Mihdhar/al-Hazmi story confirms at least some of it was indisputably intentional, not due to 'incompetence' or 'coincidence', although 'debunkers' might still try to argue that 'attempts to get sources inside Al Qaeda' somehow legitimize the obstruction, shielding and inaction all the way up to 9/11.

Well, sorry, no, that dirty laundry in particular doesn't wash and there's a limit to the amount of shenanigans we should be willing to tolerate under the rubric of 'bungling government agencies'.

By all means continue the discussion about whether or not there were hijackers on 9/11 or what type of people they were, but don't feel threatened by data which shows they fit the profile of Al Qaeda terrorists: hawks in the USG wanted and needed this attack and ruthlessly exploited it as soon as they were done not preventing it.

It stinks. Even Al Qaeda knows it. They were amazed by their success and puzzled by the catatonic behavior by US authorities.

Now the US has carte blanche for military deployments wherever it sees fit, using whatever vague pretext it fabricates, flouting international legislation, codifying criminal behavior and state terror into 'law'. The government can wage cyberwar, preemptive war, violate any border or national sovereignty, kill foreigners, kill American citizens, can eavesdrop, torture, kidnap, stage kangaroo trials, but if any of its citizens do the same it's called 'terrorism'.

Due process and impartiality are dead.

Shame on Kevin Ryan indeed...

Speaking at this event negates your ability to even call people racists. How dare you. You only help the people who committed the crimes with your childish behavior and snitch-jacketing. I'm glad this event at least showed us who you really are. Someone who at the very least supports and gives time to bigots.

Pretty low...

Kevin Ryan said: "In the future, please try to think of the victims of the 9/11 Wars and do something useful for the cause instead of thinking only about your own egomaniacal dreams."

I don't think the victims of 9/11 would appreciate you spreading lies about fake hijackers, no plane at the pentagon and no plane in Shanksville.

By promoting such cosnpiracy theories, Kevin, you might as well go spit on the victims graves!

Of course we can't ask the victims what they think about your theories becasue they are dead. Killed during plane hijackings by radical islamists on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The phone calls from the planes that day prove this. Although, Kevin's buddy, David Ray Griffin, says the phone calls are fake.... Anyone see a pattern here???

I notice you guys like to hide behind the victims and their family members.

I wonder how many family members appreciate your theories Kevin?

Got any endorsements to share?

.

This is true

shure said..."Of course we can't ask the victims what they think about your theories becasue they are dead. Killed during plane hijackings by radical islamists on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The phone calls from the planes that day prove this."

The last act the people on the planes did was tell us, The planes were not switched, and they were being MURDERED!. The "fake calls" promoters can take their OFFENSIVE stupid theory and shove it.

Divide And Conquer Comes To Mind

"And since I know you are a proponent of the demolition theory, let us know your explanation for how Muslims put explosives in the WTC."

Consider the Risk

Speaking only for myself mind you, if I were running the operation there is no way I would allow pilot error to foul up the works.

We have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the pilots, if any, would have to fly perfectly to hit the towers. Same goes for the Pentagon, if indeed any plane made that magical arrival..

We don't know for sure what really happened, but it is highly unlikely that humans were at the on-board controls of those planes.

What would happen to the operation should one or more of them get cold feet at the last moment? Can you imagine the trouble that would have caused?

I think a lot of folks have the same thoughts.

Thanks for expressing your thoughts, kawika.

One of the planes crashed

Did you notice?

O yes, yes, that had to have been on purpose then, to create the "Let's Roll" legend.

And Hanjour, well he couldn't even find his target so he had to do a standard overhead 360 descending turn, nothing special or acrobatic at all, but testament to the stupidity of the pilot with respect to navigation. He then clipped a tree, VDOT pole and five light poles as well as a heavy generator before impacting the Pentagon, and you call this "perfect".

There's always a mental exit strategy isn't there? Some excuse to keep the Northwoods-CD gravy train going...

This is called the "ad hoc hypothesis".

I don't blame anyone for doing this. I've seen this going on for so long. There is no silver bullet or miracle remedy to snap anyone out of it. There are many, many cognitive mechanisms the brain employs to protect the core values of a complex belief system and fortify cherished theories against falsification.

God didn't put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith. Rather, the Bible is wrong and a fallible work of ancient (partially plagiarized) fiction produced by man's imagination.

The latter would be the correct, rational conclusion, while the former is an ad hoc hypothesis. Unfortunately in the truth movement, the ad hoc hypothesis is very popular.

The fact of the matter is:

(1) AA 11's approach was easy
(2) UA 175's approach was truly remarkable
(3) AA 77's approach was a total mess
(4) UA 93 crashed

The hijackers all trained in simulators, yet 9/11 didn't go perfectly. There were other planes which were later suspected of having been involved in the plot had they not been grounded.

So, the operation did, in fact, go partially wrong.

That would be the correct, rational conclusion.

It is just embarrassing, how

It is just embarrassing, how you make up this staff! If you guys want to attack Dr. Ryan for saying "We can begin by stating unequivocally that Muslims did not attack the United States on 9/11."

... than what do you say to Jon Gold? I can read in his facebook-page

"Someone should write an article that shows exactly how it should be approached called, "9/11 Was NOT A Muslim Crime." Oh wait, I already did that."

By stating unequivocally that

By stating unequivocally that Muslims did not attack the United States on 9/11 and then saying the hijackers were fake doesn't help anyone. Can't you see that? It covers-up all the real evidence we have.

Radical Islamists were used. Where does radical Islam come from? How is it spread? How is it funded? etc...

Maybe you agree with Dr. Ryan that the hijackers were fake. The phone calls must be fake too then. Right guys?

You make the impression, that

You make the impression, that Dr. Ryan should have said, that the planes were not hijacked. I do not agree. There are so many, well known problems with your claim, that the hijackers were "radical islamists".

Well

If one reads the Cockpit Voice Recorder Transcript for UA 93, one sees a whole lot of Allah-U-Akhbar.

Seems pretty dedicated.

Jihadist doctrine allows for, and even encourages "blending in", which means violations of islamic code are allowed for the greater good, and as soon as a jihadist sheds his first drop of blood in a martyrdom operation, all sins are forgiven and entrance to paradise is granted.

Moreover, many of the stories of alleged transgressions have been exaggerated or come from apocryphal sources.

Again, this is example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Pedophilia isn't mandated by the bible yet we label the perpetrators catholic just the same.

I find attempts to deislamicize the religiously charged climate surrounding islamic terrorism by cherry picking some hypocritical transgressions to be rather desperate and intellectually lazy.

9/11 martyr video of Walid al-Shehri
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S53SxdGMtHk#t=4m38s

9/11 martyr video of Abdulaziz al-Omari
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHsSvrcvACs

9/11 martyr video of Saeed al-Ghamdi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr_sRV6-vAM

9/11 martyr video of Ahmed al-Ghamdi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fr3rA_KKyk

There is more to Al Qaeda than Daniel Hopsicker's gossip columns.

you know, that they are

you know, that they are saying nothing about flying planes into building.

The 20. hijacker, Moussaui, said in court: He thought, that he was in a mission to press free a prisoner by the hijacking of planes.

It is really weird, that you believe more the FBI than the witnesses, who give account about the lifestyle of Atta.

No, that's true

But they are referring to a terrorist attack on America.

Al Qaeda use compartmentalization. The video testaments you are seeing there were made by the muscle hijackers, who were only fully informed of the details at the very last minute. Bin Laden explains this in the "confession video", which also shows Suleiman Abu Ghaith, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khaled al-Harbi. None of them are 'fake' and none of them were 'actors'.

And about the FBI, you choose to believe them when they say a phone call lasts 0 seconds, do you not? Moreover, the FBI is far from the only source on Mohammed Atta. Aren't you from Germany, bio? Go see his former professor in Hamburg. What did he write in the prologue of his thesis?

Do you have evidence, that

Do you have evidence, that the (alleged) hijacker-pilots knew, what was going on? There are no confession-videos at all, on which you can base your assumption.

Another topic:
Do you believe, that Flight 93 was not shoot down? I read in another thread, that you wrote, that the hijacker-pilot did crash the plane. Perhaps it is just a misunderstanding.

Re: your comment

"Do you have evidence, that the (alleged) hijacker-pilots knew, what was going on?"

Can you help me understand what you are saying? I cannot parse this sentence. I don't get your point. I have evidence the planes were boarded and hijacked by Al Qaeda terrorists who were subsequently allowed to run amok in US airspace for two hours. This means I am looking at both Al Qaeda and the US government in terms of culpability. When there are two variables, there are 4 possible options. Are you familiar with the false dilemma fallacy?

"There are no confession-videos at all, on which you can base your assumption."

False.

"Do you believe, that Flight 93 was not shoot down?"

I haven't ruled it out completely, but I haven't seen any positive evidence for this yet. Are you familiar with the term falsification-speculation?

Books

If someone wants to read Hopsicker as part of their research -fine here is a free advertisement for his book.
Daniel Hopsicker -Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0970659164

But if one is truly interested in this subject and researching I suggest one also read another book -

Terry Mcdermott- Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It
http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Soldiers-Hijackers-They-Were/dp/B00375LNG0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330726318&sr=1-1

I've read both. Anyone can. And they can make up their own minds after reading them and checking their sources. I did and Mcdermott's book is much more informative IMO.

Have you read there something

Have you read there something about that hijacker, still alive:

"A Saudi flight engineer, Adnan Zakaria Bukhari (Arabic: عدنان زكريا بخاري‎, ʿAdnān Zakariyā al-Bukhārī) was initially reported by CNN to be one of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 as part of the September 11, 2001, attacks – his name was even said to have been on the flight manifest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Bukhari

Have you read there something about that hijacker, dead since 11. September 2000?
Ameer Bukhari
Ameer Abbas Bukhari (امیر عباس البخاری, Āmīr ʿAbbās al-Bukhārī) was initially reported by CNN to be one of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 as part of the September 11, 2001, attacks, and was mistakenly referenced as being the brother of Adnan Bukhari – another man wrongfully accused of being one of the hijackers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameer_Bukhari

Nope

Think CNN might be wrong? Can you show us a flight manifest with this name on it? McDermott obtained the flight manifest from the FBI, so it's probably fake right? But the FBI did investigate Bukhari and as you say, "another man wrongfully accused". Actually he was investigated and was not sent to gitmo. You should really address the question to CNN. I don't believe any of this in any way proves there were no hijackers. The phone calls from the planes prove there were hijackers and they were not Jehovah's Witnesses.

Just because the FBI was

Just because the FBI was finally able to present the flight-manifest after many years, all the problems with it do not disappear.

Means what?

Why not tel lus what all these problems are. You say other names were reported as being on the flight manifests but can not name a single person who saw this flight manifest with these other names.

CNN is confusing Ameer and Adnan Bukhari with Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari. As to why that is I don't know. My guess would be sloppy reporting. The explanation IMO isn't going to change much. But it would be nice to have an answer to this. I doubt it will be anything earth shattering though.

see this.....

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_8AcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qH8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2499,2440236&dq=adnan+bukhari&hl=en

and see this...

"In early September 2001, Atta traveled to Maryland, where fellow hijacker Hani Hanjour was at the time. Atta then traveled to Boston, and on September 10, with Abdulaziz al-Omari to Portland, Maine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta

Hani Hanjour

CNN should have just made that up? Come one.

There is not just CNN-confusion. The FBI by itself searched the houses of the Burkharis soon after 911. Why?

You overtake Hani Hanjour as there would not be any anomalies around him. For example reported CNN a "Mosear Caned" as hijacker instead of Hani Hanjour on 14. September 2001.

FBI Investigates

From CNN:
"September 13, 2001
"According to law enforcement sources, Atta was on American Airlines Flight 11 that departed from Boston and slammed into the World Trade Center."
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-13/us/flight.schools_1_flight-school-flight-safety-academy-huffman-aviation?_s=PM:US

Adios to your "CNN says Atta wasn't on the plane theory."

bio said...."There is not just CNN-confusion. The FBI by itself searched the houses of the Burkharis soon after 911. Why?"

My guess would be because they are conducting an investigation. And they were at the same flight school as the hijackers and lived next door. And....

From CNN:
"Federal sources initially identified Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari as possible hijackers who boarded one of the planes that originated in Boston. The two men were first identified as brothers, but Adnan Bukhari said that was not the case.

Their names had been tied to a car found at an airport in Portland, Maine, but Adnan Bukhari's attorney said it appeared their identifications were stolen and said Bukhari had no role in the hijackings. A federal law enforcement official said Bukhari passed an FBI polygraph test and is not considered a suspect."
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-13/us/flight.schools_1_flight-school-flight-safety-academy-huffman-aviation?_s=PM:US

Does this all mean the hijackers were not Muslim and the phone calls were fake? We could say that if we wanted to I guess. But why?

Exactly

"Does this all mean the hijackers were not Muslim and the phone calls were fake? We could say that if we wanted to I guess. But why?"

Nothing in this avenue of inquiry promises to prove Ryan's no hijacker variant.

Here's CNN apologizing:

CORRECTION
We would like to correct a report that appeared on CNN. Based on information from multiple law enforcement sources, CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. CNN later learned that Adnan Bukhari is still in Florida, where he was questioned by the FBI. We are sorry for the misinformation. A federal law enforcement source now tells CNN that Bukhari passed an FBI polygraph and is not considered a suspect. Through his attorney, Bukhari says that he is helping authorities. Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash last year.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/

It's interesting, sure, but does it prove no hijacker theory or any of its variants? No.

Hey, but at least CNN is "sorry for the misinformation".

It seems as if some truthers aim to "raise an eyebrow", and when that feat has been accomplished, presumably a larger, overarching theory has been proven. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. If you want something out of this, follow up and follow through.

I can say the same about the

I can say the same about the Bukhari-brothers in the flight manifest. With high probability CNN obtained it also from FBI, as McDermott.

OK

Ok, so CNN and McDermott both obtained the flight manifest from CNN. Except Mcdermott is a liar, and CNN is telling the truth. Yea. you can say that. You can say anything. Have any evidence of anything?
They showed the manifests at the Moussaoui trial as well, I I don't see these names.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight11Manifest_a.jpg

And the Boston Globe reported it obtained the Manifests as well on Sept 14.

"MIAMI, Sept. 14, 2001
"The Boston Globe reported on its web site Thursday that it had obtained a copy of the complete manifest list of the planes hijacked from Boston."

"The Globe said according to the manifest, Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected terrorists, was assigned seat 8D in business class on American Airlines Flight 11, directly across the aisle from Hollywood producer David Angell and his wife, Lynn, who were in seats 8A and 8B, respectively. Seated next to Atta in seat 8G was Abdul Alomari. FBI investigators have searched Alomari's home in Vero Beach."
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/suspects/suspects-in-daytona-beach-strip-club-night-before.txt

Same article:

"Agents were questioning Saudi flight engineer Adnan Bukhari, 41, whom a county sheriff's official said was cooperating with FBI inquiries. Bukhari was a student at Flight Safety, which trains commercial jet crews."

"Agents searched four Vero Beach homes, including Bukhari's and the house next door, where another Flight Safety student, Alomari, lived with his wife and four children."
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/suspects/suspects-in-daytona-beach-strip-club-night-before.txt

So instead of just admitting CNN did some sloppy reporting , you could say Atta was never on the flight manifest instead Bukhari was. You could even if you wanted to say I was on it. But what is the point?

But if you want you can continue to say they were on the flight manifests anyway. How come?

I can't figure out why you'd

I can't figure out why you'd cherry-pick Jon's quote --unless you had some sort of agenda. You say you can read, but can you comprehend?

Here's the whole thing:

"People who say there were no hijackers on 9/11 (even though there's a plethora of information that suggests otherwise), and defend their conspiracy theory (because that's exactly what it is) by saying that if you think there were hijackers, you are a racist, really aren't using their brains. Someone should write an article that shows exactly how it should be approached called, "9/11 Was NOT A Muslim Crime." Oh wait, I already did that. Also, there is WAY more incriminating information regarding 9/11 with the hijackers in the picture. Why would anyone want people to shy away from that information I wonder?" -Jon Gold

Here is the article he is referencing:

http://911truthnews.com/911-was-not-a-muslim-crime/

Now, either you are borderline illiterate and have no business being embarrassed by other truthers, or you have some sort of agenda. Which is it, Bio?

no reason to become nasty

When did Dr. Ryan say, that the planes were not hijacked?

I just did not understand his lecture in that way, you guys are doing it.

D:

It's a pretty fucking slippery slope when you go around saying Muslims were not involved, don't you think? The word is pander. You gotta wonder about the the mind set of a movement and the mental health of it's adherents when it goes to great lengths to "prove" things like 'omg! dual-Israeli citizenship! derp!' but it's absolutely outrageous to consider that Saudi royalty aided the very real Muslim hijackers at every turn.

But let's just ignore things like the Malaysia summit, the Yemen hub, and the the phone calls because CONTROLLED DEMOLITION HURR DURR.

Btw be sure to read Jon's book when you get a chance. I'm sure he'd send it to you for free if you asked him, since you're friends on Facebook. Here's the link if you'd rather contribute to getting it into the top 10:

http://www.amazon.com/11-Truther-Justice-Accountability-ebook/dp/B007DVDV2S

Kevin Ryan

Claims there were no hijackers, they weren't muslim and insinuates some of them could be alive (which is the old false equivalency between stolen identities, mistaken identities, and actually turning up alive)

It's all very politically correct and I'm sure it gives one a warm, fuzzy feeling inside, but every single one of these claims and their various manifestations are false. Choose one of several polymorphic variants, it matters not. Semantic subterfuge isn't going to wiggle anyone out of this.

where

Where does he say, that there were no hijackers?

Yes it seems, that these people were in the planes (although there are also many problems in that field), but the government was not able to prove, that they knew, what was really going on.

There are at least one still alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Bukhari

On the planes

bio said..."but the government was not able to prove, that they knew, what was really going on."

The people on the plane knew what was going on though, and tried to tell us with their "fake" phone calls. Am I being disrespectful to the very first victims of 9-11 by taking their phone calls seriously? By listening to what they had to say just before they died? I guess I'm just an asshole.

Woodward (Manager of Flight Services, AMERICAN AIRLINES) received one of those "fake" calls from the plane. They show people were being murdered in a terrorist attack. So those calls HAVE to be fake. Right? Or do you think they just went a little bit overboard on their "exercise"?

"A man in business class has had his throat slashed and is presumably dead. #1 flight attendant has been stabbed and #5 flight attendant has been stabbed."

"SWEENEY told WOODWARD the #1 attendant (KAREN MARTIN) and the #5 attendant (BOBBY ARUSTIGUE) has been stabbed. SWEENEY also stated that a business class passenger was stabbed and a doctor and nurse were caring for him. SWEENEY stated that three (3) hijackers gained access to the cockpit and the flight crew could not gain access or communicate with the pilots or the cockpit.

As the conversation continued, SWEENEY told WOODWARD the gentleman in business class is not going to make it because his throat is slashed and he is bleeding severely."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-michael-woodward2.pdf

You're right, George

I did not say that there were no hijackers or no phone calls. But that's how disinformation works.

The absurd thing about these attackers is that their new leader, Jeffrey Hill, actually made a film about video fakery. "You did know the videos were faked, right?," he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDPOhADnXkM

The videos were fake but if there were hijackers, they must have been Muslims. It really doesn't get more ridiculous.

Disinformation

"I did not say that there were no hijackers or no phone calls. But that's how disinformation works."

No Disinformation would be something like this....

Kevin Ryan said..."Jeffrey Hill, actually made a film about video fakery. "You did know the videos were faked, right?," he says. "

Here you just deliberately with the intention to deceive others claim Jeff Hill promotes and believes in video fakery when he does not....

"Disinformation (a direct translation of Russian дезинформация dezinformatsiya) is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

The video you posted was not posted by Jeff and it includes a link to his site that he has long ago taken down. He took it down because he realized he was misinformed and the information was unintentionally false. That would be misinformation that he has since corrected. You however know he does not fall for this kind of nonsense anymore so you are intentionally spreading false and inaccurate information. The very definition of disinformation.

And BTW if there were hijackers do you think they were Jewish? And if you believe there were phone calls why do you promote the leading proponent of fake phone calls? Oh right because if you know the phone calls were real and promote someone who claims they are not that would also be spreading disinformation. Thanks for the lesson.

Wow.

Classic Jim. Kevin you are undoing every piece of credibility you were ever given.

Show "Wow! This is funny. Kevin," by shure

A New Kind Of 9/11 Truther?

Re: Shure, NCT, SC, ZBH, JimD, Kdub

Hard not to notice ... the odd group of "Truthers" here of late who mistakenly seem to think that being a "Truther" means accepting the unproven official 9/11 tale as being ... the truth.

Edit: Also noteworthy is the remarkably short time (literally seconds at times) it takes for the negative votes to appear upon comments such as this ... as if some of you stalk the site.

9/11 or 9/12?

The official story claims 9-11 happened on 9-11. I can not count the number of people supporting this fairy tale. Even though we have proof that not only did the plane NOT hit the pentagon (it flew under it) but it happened on 9-12 which completely destroys the official 9-11 story!

see...

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/pentagon_still_plane_sm.jpg

Jimd3100Stein CON
Proud Associate of Total MIHOP Warriors Alliance
Endorsed by LoLz For 9/11 Truth

"Also we are proud to be the the first and possibly only group to officially endorse The Fly Under Theory." - LoLz For 9/11
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6995

An old kind of truther

Is a person who stubbornly insists that David Ray Griffin's Northwoods/voice morphing/dead fake alive Mossad hijackers-theories are true...

and consistently and shamelessly spreads falsehoods about the beliefs of others who don't go along with that.

Don't misrepresent my position on 9/11, Aidan. Just because I don't believe some of your favorite theories it doesn't mean I believe the 9/11 Commission Report.

I'm not either with "9/11 Truth" or against "9/11 Truth". I take whatever position I wish, when I wish, if I believe that position is justified by facts and evidence. I'm currently quite content with my track record, while I'm very disappointed, you might even say a bit angry, about how Kevin Fenton and Duffy & Nowosielski were treated by the "Truth" Movement.

UA 175 had to be diverted off its present course to avoid AA 11's exclusion zone. That means bye bye Northwoods/plane swap/voice morphing/no passenger/no hijacker theories. (Which were DOA anyway because of the phone calls) I refuse to believe in fanciful, fictional memes whose only raison d'être is to "stick it to the man". I detest that. It's the exact same cesspit of pathetic confirmation bias the racist southern birther movement wallows in. Anything to smear Obama, facts be damned. A new hoax every week.

The core value of a Truther is truth, not blind defiance using bullheaded canards.

Yes, Aidan

It is sad. These attackers come as a group after lurking here to find someone who is doing actual research. Full of wild assumptions that imply they are the new, superior truth police, they shout down any such researchers without even looking the material.

When their own work is revealed, they claim it was all in the past and just a matter of technical knowledge (forget all those witnesses and the extreme complexity involved). The guy who led this particular attack was a video fakery expert just a couple of years ago, and was still friends with the leading proponents of video fakery just a year ago (until his continued association with them was revealed). Now he is the leader of the anti-research attack group.

Pathetic.

Wild assumptions

You've done actual research, Kevin, plenty of it. Far be it from me to deny you work hard. I personally take issue with no hijacker theory and Northwoods-based speculation. Did you expect uncritical assent?

Far from forgetting the witnesses, Jeff Hill has done the legwork and called many of them, and this has been a great help pulling the rug from under Pentagon no plane theories.

It's well known Jeff was once a no planer, and he's changed his mind. Rather than a sign of weakness this is a sign of strength. Jeff is right: you're using the same tactics CIT and P4T use to attack Jeff now. Is it because you've got nothing else to go on but to vilify Jeff for past mistakes he is actively trying to set right?

To say Jeff is the 'leader' of anything is new to me. He's not my leader, but we have things we agree on.

You seem bitter, irrational and angry. Perhaps it's understandable when your public actions are the subject of debate, but I must say I'm taken aback by the viciousness of your responses. If that is how it's going to be, however, then so be it.

I remind you that you are a proponent of video fakery unless you're willing to go on record and say the various Al Qaeda videos, including the martyr videos and the Bin Laden tape, are real.

Glass houses and stones and all of that.

By the way, from what I've seen of Al Qaeda video and PR material, I'd argue Al Qaeda themselves question the official story, just not that they had nothing to do with it.

If this is a popularity

If this is a popularity contest, you win, Kevin. You have the hearts and minds of the "truth movement".

I don't know why you basically posted the same thing twice about someting I looked into years ago and realised was not true. I don't know how someone as smart as you can believe some of the things you do. Although, I hope one day, if you're honest with yourself, you will admit you are wrong about some of things you believe concerning 9/11.

You are still disregarding a couple of simple questions:

Do you think the hijackers are fake?

Do you think the phone calls from the planes are fake?

I was actually relieved when I heard you would be speaking with Gage instead of David Ray Griffin. After I watched, I was discouraged by the impression I was left with. I wasn't trying to attack you. I was addressing your presentation and wanted my questions answered.

Yep!

"You are still disregarding a couple of simple questions:

Do you think the hijackers are fake?

Do you think the phone calls from the planes are fake?"

And I'll add...

Do you think a plane hit the pentagon?

Do you think a group of jews were a primary culprit of the attack?

You wanna be a "leader"? Pshh, try clearing up some ambiguity for us. Your dodgy tactics are as telling as your lame, racist (speaking at this event) behavior.

Still no clarifications on any of these Kevin?

Maybe you're busy watching old videos of Farrakhan talking about killing all white people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfZYqCOih8

The defense and apologizing I am seeing for this notorious disgusting bigot on 9/11 blogger are appalling. I hope some of you all take a good look at whom you are supporting.

New kind of Truther?

As you say Aidan - it's quite noticeable on this thread.

I'm also fascinated at how quickly I have been down-voted in the last week.

There's only one kind of truther

The kind which fearlessly speaks the truth no matter what the cost, no matter how powerful the peer pressure might be.

Aidan sees plots against him and his everywhere around him, and often insinuates we are all 'agents'. The latest chestnut is that my 'response time' is too quick to be normal. That isn't perceptive, it's paranoid and stupid.

It's Sunday and I don't have anything better to do. Then again, maybe I do.

Voted you up so you can feel better.

Yea Kevin, OUT WITH IT. Please respond and don't dodge...

"Kevin do you think the hijackers were fake? What about the phone calls? Were they fake? Do you even think a plane hit the pentagon?"

You failed miserably by speaking at this event. Why not clarify for everyone what you think about these known claims? Common...You can do it.

Armchair Ankle Biters

When the afore mentioned allied clique is not peddling the Popular Mechanics version of 9/11 (Kdub, SC, Jimd, NCT, Shure, etc.) they can be found attacking the 9/11 skeptics community's most successful research and voices ... David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and now Kevin Ryan.

Perhaps this is all one needs to know about them (besides their association to video fakery).

The NOI presentation was a very positive breakthrough, which might explain the feigned opposition to it here.

How does me = their ?

How does me = their?

Aw Aidan more sad attactics from you

What association with TV Fakery Aidan??? Any quotes or proof? You rarely back up your childish accusations. I'm sure you won't respond directly.

And of course this snitch-jacket, non-substance response, is to a few people SIMPLY asking Kevin Ryan to clarify some fundamental positions. (weird huh?)

And you are attacking some of the most out spoken critics against tv fakery and the pop mechanics hit piece you mention.

You think NOI is a positive thing? Well how about their open attacks against jew's Aidan? Is that part of your sterling positivity? So please tell us what you think of these position's of FarraCON and his NOI followers. If you consider this a positive, then it means you are a proponent of these positions. Please let us know.

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-17/pivotal-911-petition-storms-canadian-parliament#comment-255391

You have gone to far here. What defines DRG, Gage, and Ryan's "success" in your mind Aidan? I would consider success people who gained credibility for the truth movement. So far DRG, Gage and Ryan are making great strides in spreading bad information or debunked information, or affiliations with DISGUSTINGLY RACIST (see link above) groups. They have set back the movement years. If this is success, then your goal is for the truth of 9/11 never to out.

To all you people who want the TRUTH out, it is time to denounce pseudo-leaders who want to affiliate YOU with nauseating bigotry. You must denounce those who when confronted with contradictory facts, choose to ignore reality and live in their theory filled bubbles. I don't care how amazing, mind-blowing or sexy you think a theory is. If your theory is discredited or debunked, then it's dead. Simple right?

So then ask yourselves why these amazingly brilliant pseudo leaders when shown tangible solid evidence against their theories choose to IGNORE and not change their positions. These types of bunk responses to the truth are not just unreasonable. They are irresponsible and in DIRECT contraction to the alleged skepticism these psuedo-leaders once appeared to possess.

If you are for the TRUTH and not some "experts" theory about the truth, you understand why no one knows everything about 9/11 yet. If kids, or doctors, or name callers or ANYONE (short of a real live, officially confirmed backed up whistle-blowers) tells you they KNOW what happened on 9/11, then you KNOW they are LYING. It's easy to see and you can save your self a lot of time and annoying convo's by not wasting your time memorizing their garbage. When you lose your skepticism and accept a theory for any reason other than fact, you help the people who committed the crimes of 9/11 get away! There's no getting around this.

So be sure to look and see if Aidan or Kevin respond to my questions above and in this thread. It's incredibly telling as to their intentions. Some of these alleged experts wanna waste your time, energy and reputation and CHARGE you for it. Some of us hold you good truth seekers in a higher regard by not insulting your intelligence with lies and speculation.

Your latest Conspiracy theory

Aidan Monaghan said.."PERHAPS this is all one needs to know about them (besides their association to video fakery)."
Aidan Monaghan said..."The NOI presentation was a very positive breakthrough, which MIGHT explain the feigned opposition to it here."

Perhaps it might? Sounds like a theory? Let's explore your latest conspiracy theory. After all, this would be a conspiracy would it not?

Explain my association to video fakery.

If it is because of my association to Jeff Hill, explain this association.

I will remind you how easy it is for Jeff Hill to tell us what he thinks of video fakery and whether he thinks it should be promoted or if he thinks it is total BS.

If you attempt to explain this away as "well, he believed it at one time" Not only will this prove your dishonesty and poor attempt at deception, but will bring up this question..."Ever believe anything in regards to 9-11 that you later came to conclude was inaccurate?"

You have now proven yourself with your own posts to be a conspiracy theorist and a pathetic and dishonest one at that. In other words you are a poster boy for what is wrong with the so called "9-11 truth movement".

Here here

The notion that me, kdub, vulich, YT, Jon Gold, zica, Jimd3100 or anybody else who are currently on Aidan's shit list have an 'association to video fakery' is like saying the Black Panthers have an association to the KKK.

Jeff Hill also knows Ron Wieck. Does this mean Ron Wieck is a no planer too, Monaghan? When are you going to admit you're full of it? Now would be good.

Edit: removed last bit.

Ookaaay ...

You guys win.

Note: To those who object to the content of comments posted by the likes of:

Snowcrash, Jimd3100, kdub, Nor Cal Truth, zombie bill hicks, shure, etc.

Information based rebuttals will suffice. Because this group seems highly motivated to cause division and animosity within discussion threads through the use of foul language, taunting and conflicted points of view, one would be wise to avoid involved interaction.

Right

You think you're quite something, don't you Aidan?

For the record, I find your snitchjacketing campaign against all of us cowardly, paranoid and intellectually impotent. What's more, you don't know when to stop. I'm long past the point of forgiveness. I haven't returned the favor. I don't think you're an 'agent'. I just think you're full of it. Snitchjacketing is not an 'information based rebuttal', it's a symptom of a delusional persecution complex, but if done insincerely, it's actually the lowest form of ad hominem available to the disgruntled malcontent who can't conduct a debate on substance.

Mull over that, or don't. I don't care anymore.

OWNED

Aiden was just owned so hard I think I might print this out, put it on my fridge, and give SC an A+ with some gold stars for added bonus.

Delusional persecution complex barely begins to describe it, my friend!

Now your smokin!

Aiden says:

Because this group seems highly motivated to cause division and animosity within discussion threads through the use of foul language, taunting and conflicted points of view, one would be wise to avoid involved interaction

But why doesn't Aidan givew a shit if Kevin and Richard go to the foul-mouthed, taunting, conflicted Farrakhan event, even defending them for it?

Because he is ass-backwards wrong and too stubborn to admit it.

Non-religious terrorism

Even if Muslims wanted to do 9/11, that doesn't mean they did. A will is not a way.

If US officials were involved in aiding and abetting the attacks, then it's an inside operation even if the accused were devoutly religious. But I see no evidence the accused hijackers were religious fanatics despite being branded as such.

Re: the attacks: 2,200 people were murdered by non-Muslims in controlled demolitions while 800 were killed from plane impacts. (Another 1,000 have died as a direct result of the pulverized dust from the demolitions).

This means that 3,200 of 4,000 fatalities resulted from non-Muslim, non-religious terrorists.

Re: the remaining 800, if one or more of the 9/11 planes were under remote control, regardless of whether or not the accused were in the cockpit, then this portion is an inside job and not the product of Muslims. Or if the accused were witting or unwitting assets being manipulated by intelligence, then it's not a Muslim attack either. It's a false flag - even if they were manually flying the planes.

For 9/11 not to be a false flag, this is what you have to believe:

*Al Qaeda exists wholly separate from intelligence and is not co-opted.
*OBL was not a US government asset / Sibel is wrong.
*The accused hijackers were devoutly Muslim and were motivated by religion.
*The accused hijackers were successfully flying the planes into targets despite having never flown a jet.
*The section of the targets hit (Wedge 1 Pentagon/ renovated portion of towers) was coincidence.
*It's coincidence that the budget analysts were struck at the Pentagon.
*No officials conspired to stand-down or to be missing in action, derelict of duty.
*The war games were a coincidence.
*There was no controlled demolition of any of the three towers.
*Fires can melt steel and concrete and burn in excess of 3,000 degrees F.
*Collapses produce energetic materials on the nano-scale.

Even if Muslims wanted to do

Even if Muslims wanted to do 9/11, that doesn't mean they did. A will is not a way.

RL, I am sure you understand how detrimental our foreign policy is to the Muslim community abroad. Those policies indeed create desperate hate. I am not saying it isn't justified either, the desperation and hate that is.

Images of Palestinian children throwing rocks against soldiers with guns and tanks is a too common image. The amount of foreign covert involvement by the CIA is overwhelming and detrimental to the nations it affects. Sanctions...etc.,

The foreign policy!

And the foreign policies indeed were only enabled even more so by the assisted (by CIA, Saudi, etc.) and intensified (by bombs in the towers and WTC 7, crippling our air defense) attacks of 9/11.

The foreign policies were desired more so by many in the PNAC and they wrote about how to maintain some hegemony.

There is so much to agree on!

I really hope you read Disconnecting the Dots

Kevin, I really hope you take the time to read it too, perhaps a review from you would build some bridges around here. I really think you will find it to be a worth-wile read.

Re: non-religious terrorism

"Even if Muslims wanted to do 9/11, that doesn't mean they did. A will is not a way."

False. A videotaped will is strong supporting evidence of involvement.

"If US officials were involved in aiding and abetting the attacks, then it's an inside operation even if the accused were devoutly religious. "

Hmmm, not quite. If the hijackers were unaware of the goings on, then "inside operation" is a misleading label. Facilitation, perhaps.

"But I see no evidence the accused hijackers were religious fanatics despite being branded as such."

Then it's time to start studying 9/11. There are some links to martyr videos above. Start there. Don't say they're fake unless you can prove it empirically. And I don't mean proving they used a green screen, because that is standard operating procedure for As-Sahab.

"Re: the attacks: 2,200 people were murdered by non-Muslims in controlled demolitions while 800 were killed from plane impacts. (Another 1,000 have died as a direct result of the pulverized dust from the demolitions)."

Please provide credible sources for your numbers and claims. I doubt they are far off, it's just courtesy.

"Re: the remaining 800, if one or more of the 9/11 planes were under remote control, regardless of whether or not the accused were in the cockpit, then this portion is an inside job and not the product of Muslims."

Agreed, but the phone calls indicate there were hijackers, and there is no direct evidence of remote control, so this point is mostly based on fantasy and speculation, and therefore irrelevant.

"Or if the accused were witting or unwitting assets being manipulated by intelligence, then it's not a Muslim attack either."

I wouldn't describe it as a muslim attack anyway, or as a christian or jewish attack. But I'm not going to shy away from affirming that the 9/11 hijackers were islamic extremists.

"It's a false flag - even if they were manually flying the planes."

Incorrect. The definition of a false flag excludes any sort of participation by the group which is supposed to be blamed. This is just a fact. It can't be helped.

"For 9/11 not to be a false flag, this is what you have to believe:"

Since you've got your definition of false flag skewed, you've already failed to make your case at this point, and all the points you list are moot from the get-go. If 9/11 wasn't a false flag attack (and it technically wasn't), that doesn't mean the US and governments are not complicit in the attack. But let's continue, and assess the truth value of each bullet point.

"Al Qaeda exists wholly separate from intelligence and is not co-opted."

Al Qaeda does and did have links to various intelligence agencies but it has not been co-opted.

"OBL was not a US government asset / Sibel is wrong."

Basically correct. I don't believe OBL was a government asset other than his cooperation with various intelligence agencies, including the CIA, during the Afghan-Russian war. He certainly wasn't after his declaration of war on the United States and the West.

But support for Al Qaeda affiliated Uyghurs in China does not equal "Bin Laden is a CIA agent" anyway, so..

"The accused hijackers were devoutly Muslim and were motivated by religion."

Yes. But jihad allows for blending in, and martyrdom operations guarantee entrance to paradise, all sins are expunged when the first drop of blood is shed. Many Hopsicker/gossip stories about drinking, etc. have been exaggerated, and are inaccurate and doubtful.

All things considered, yes, these were islamic extremists. Have a look at the martyr videos. These look and sound like moderates to you?

"The accused hijackers were successfully flying the planes into targets despite having never flown a jet."

They all spent dozens of hours in simulators after learning how to fly small planes. Atta's approach was the easiest. Hanjour performed poorly on 9/11. Al-Shehhi's final lap is admittedly remarkable. Jarrah crashed.

"The section of the targets hit (Wedge 1 Pentagon/ renovated portion of towers) was coincidence."

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

"It's coincidence that the budget analysts were struck at the Pentagon."

Probably, yes. Hanjour was following I-395. Which budget analysts, btw? Do you have some names? Many non-budget analysts were struck, too.

"No officials conspired to stand-down or to be missing in action, derelict of duty."

Officials can conspire to do this with an actual attack taking place, so this point makes no sense.

"The war games were a coincidence."

There's no reason to think that and it's not necessary to believe the war games were coincidental. You attempt to forcibly "pair up" certain beliefs, or you attempt to convince people two sets of facts are mutually exclusive, while they are not. There can be 9/11 hijackers as well as non-coincidental war games. Also, believing there were 9/11 hijackers does not mean one has fully accepted the official story. Do you acknowledge these facts?

"There was no controlled demolition of any of the three towers."

Hijackers and CD are not mutually exclusive.

"Fires can melt steel and concrete and burn in excess of 3,000 degrees F."

A blast furnace can, but the conditions inside the towers did not resemble a blast furnace, as far as I can tell.

Again, hijackers and CD are not mutually exclusive.

"Collapses produce energetic materials on the nano-scale."

Since there is no process of natural self-assembly which could account for that, the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) prevents this from happening. If there were energetic materials inside the WTC, this does not annul the existence of hijackers.

The biggest misdirection in your post, in my opinion, is the subtle implication that rejection of Northwoods and/or CD means full acceptance of the official narrative. A straw man argument, which you subsequently bayonet enthusiastically.

Ringleader Atta

There should be debate on the accused 9/11 ringleader, Mohammed Atta:

1) Who did Atta work for? Did he have ties to the CIA asset Osama bin Laden? Or did he have ties to intelligence agencies? 9/11 Truthers must unmask Atta.

2) Was Atta a devout Muslim? Produce the evidence that he was motivated to attack America in the name of Islam. Or was he motivated by something else.

Since 9/11 is blamed on Muslim jihadists, you must prove beyond doubt that this ringleader was a religious fanatic or else what Kevin says is true. "Muslims did not attack America on Sept. 11." If Atta was not as we were told, then this is a false flag - or at the very least a false implication of who was behind the attacks.

I didn't hear Kevin say that Atta was not on board the plane, or that other accused hijackers weren't on board. He said the accused were not authentic Muslims. I said that if government officials were involved in making this happen, it's an inside job. (For the 800 killed.)

And absolute inside operation for the 2,220 people murdered. *Even if you DO believe that there were 2 separate 9/11 plots to kill Americans. Both plots would be inside jobs.

Re: Atta

"Who did Atta work for? Did he have ties to the CIA asset Osama bin Laden?"

Osama Bin Laden wasn't a "CIA asset" on 9/11 in the sense that he did what they said. There is no evidence for that. In fact, they had a whole unit at the CIA monitoring Bin Laden, called "UBLU". Are you familiar with it? People need to stop relying on Sibel Edmonds alone for this information, and sensationalizing it in the process. CIA supporting Al Qaeda-tied Uyghurs in China because it suits their dirty geopolitical games just like they supported the Mujahideen (and by extension Bin Laden) in Afghanistan does not mean they have Bin Laden on their payroll and in their pocket. Bin Laden was infuriated after the First Gulf War, because Saudi royals preferred American troops stationed on Saudi Arabian soil to take on Saddam Hussein over a bunch of rag-tag Mujahideen. The affront of haram troops on holy soil combined with what Bin Laden saw as his Arab mujahideen's hard-fought, solitary victory over the Russians convinced him he could now take on the United States, the second superpower & his former ally, too.

As for your question: "who did Atta work for":

In November 1999, the three pilots - Atta, Al Shehhi and Jarrah - traveled with Binalshibh to Afghanistan to train at al-Qaida camps, Nehm said. Three more Hamburg plotters - Essabar, Bahaji and Motassadeq - followed in the spring of 2000.

When the first group returned from Afghanistan, the three started arranging flying lessons in the United States; Atta contacted 31 schools himself. They reported their passports lost to erase any suspicious visas and received U.S. visas. Binalshibh and Essabar intended to fly in the United States, too, Nehm said, but they were denied entry.

By May 2000 at least one target apparently had been chosen. In one of the cell's few indiscretions, Al Shehhi bragged to a Hamburg librarian that the World Trade Center would crumble one day. "There will be thousands of deaths," Nehm quoted him as saying. "You will think of me."

http://web.archive.org/web/20021026203648/http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/attack_on_america/4020169...

"Was Atta a devout Muslim?"

"A wiry 5-foot-7, Atta was a serious, focused student, later described by his advisor, Dittmar Machule, as "a searcher in his religiosity - like somebody who despaired at the world. Somebody who combined high intellect with deep faith."

http://web.archive.org/web/20021026203648/http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/attack_on_america/4020169...

You know Dittmar Machule don't you? I recommended that bio contact him earlier in this thread. Countdown to you claiming Atta was somehow non-religious because he was rumored by Amanda Keller to eat pork in 10..9..8..

"Produce the evidence that he was motivated to attack America in the name of Islam."

The group closed itself off to others as planning intensified, prosecutor Nehm said, and in September 1999 moved its meetings to a second Hamburg apartment, on Wilhelmstrasse. By then, long beards and tunics had replaced their Western jeans and clean-shaven faces, Nehm said.

One visitor to the Marienstrasse apartment told investigators that during a visit in 1999, someone asked what could be done to fight Jews, Israel and the United States.

"We could take measures," Nehm quoted Atta as responding. "There are ways. The USA isn't omnipotent."

http://web.archive.org/web/20021026203648/http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/attack_on_america/4020169...

There's more, of course, but why don't you do this work yourself?

"Since 9/11 is blamed on Muslim jihadists, you must prove beyond doubt that this ringleader was a religious fanatic or else what Kevin says is true."

Nonsense. Religious zealots are hypocrites, whether they be Jewish, Christian or Muslim. I don't accept your false dilemma. (Either .. Or...)

"I didn't hear Kevin say that Atta was not on board the plane, or that other accused hijackers weren't on board. He said the accused were not authentic Muslims."

Whatever floats Kevin's boat. He also insinuated some hijackers may be alive, which is quite stupid after a years of this canard being mercilessly debunked. They're all dead. It ain't rocket science.

"I said that if government officials were involved in making this happen, it's an inside job. (For the 800 killed.)"

And I say it was an outsourced job (and I don't artificially segment 9/11 victims into blame groups, all perpetrators share blame for all deaths.)

"Both plots would be inside jobs."

"Inside job" connotes no outside influence, while there clearly was. Therefore the slogan "inside job" is erroneous and imprecise.

"On the morning of Sept. 11, Atta, awaiting takeoff from Boston's Logan Airport on American Airlines Flight 11, made a cell phone call from his business class seat near the front of the cabin. The phone rang on United Airlines Flight 175, on the tarmac nearby. Atta's "cousin," Marwan al Shehhi, answered."

http://web.archive.org/web/20021026203648/http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/attack_on_america/4020169...

They were surveiling these guys. Why weren't they stopped? What is the US government hiding?

It wasn't "voice morphing" or "plane swaps" with "pilots replaced by top gun kamikaze NWO agents through last minute flight roster hocus pocus", but we are, of course, all free to keep asking the wrong questions until we're blue in the face.

Thanks for the infos. I

Thanks for the infos. I checked it.
http://www.jurawelt.com/gerichtsurteile/strafrecht/olg/8919?OUTPUTFORMAT=PRINT

Yes there is one (!) female librarian in Hamburg, who witnessed that: Al Shehhi said, that the WTC would crumble one day. "There will be thousands of deaths," .
Another person, who attended the conversion did -not- confirm it. The woman cannot explain this. Furthermore does the witness El Motassadeqs, who was a friend of Atta & Co, could also -not- confirm any of these views.

About the source

I speak German too. Didn't you know?

A cursory glance of the text just now already reveals you are cherry picking and omitting. Grotesquely. It's one long confirmation of my position and an undercutting of yours. Atta's circle looked upon New York as the 'center of Jewish power'. They were ready to kill, and among them were cheerleaders for the Holocaust.

Im zeillichen Zusammenhang mit dem zuvor genannten Umzug At.s, Ba.s und Bi.s in die Marienstraße wurden die bereits genannten politischreligiösen Einstellungen der Personen um At. noch radikaler. Dies gilt auch für den Angeklagten, der im Rahmen der Diskussionen in diesem Zeitraum die Juden beschuldigte, den Islam auszurotten, der den Massenmord an den Juden im sogenannten Dritten Reich begrüßte, New York als „Zentrum der jüdischen Machtausübung" bezeichnete und die Anwendung von Gewalt im sogenannten Djihad, als dem „Heiligen Krieg" der Muslime gegen die „Ungläubigen", befürwortete. In einer dieser Diskussionen erklärte Ba., er sei bereit, für seinen Glauben zu töten. Dem schloss sich der Angeklagte für sich ausdrücklich an.

Try again, bio.

In spite of all these

In spite of all these discussions, there is seemingly just two witness, who can confirm, that they planned to slam planes into buildings.

I keep reading.

problematic

I do not have so much time for studying, but it seems to be a very problematic case. Atta & Co really seemed to be extreme islamists here in Hamburg! How could he change his behavior so radical in Venice?

This second witness (who confirms indirectly, that Atta & co planned to slam planes into building) was also contradicted by another witness of the discussion.

"Der Senat ist von der Richtigkeit der Aussage des Zeugen L... überzeugt, obwohl nicht nur der Angeklagte, sondern auch der Zeuge A... bestritten haben, ein derartiges Gespräch geführt zu haben."

There is another witness, a former bodyguard of Bin Laden. He said in court, that Bin Laden should have predicted, that there will be "thousands" of victims.

I will study it further and publish an article here about the whole case.

correction of snowcash

As far as I understand the (final) verdict the following witness-accounts, you quoted, were -not- taken credible enough:

"By May 2000 at least one target apparently had been chosen. In one of the cell's few indiscretions, Al Shehhi bragged to a Hamburg librarian that the World Trade Center would crumble one day. "There will be thousands of deaths," Nehm quoted him as saying. "You will think of me."

By the way: The date is not correct. According to the statement of the court, this prediction happened early 1999 not May 2000! False Information

As well as the following event, this should have happened also early 1999:
„Sie wollen wieder etwas machen und es wird etwas Größeres sein. Die Juden werden verbrennen, und wir werden auf ihren Gräbern tanzen.") sowie die ebenfalls dargestellte Äußerung in jener Zeit (''Das ist unser Pilot."), http://www.jurawelt.com/gerichtsurteile/strafrecht/olg/8919?OUTPUTFORMAT=PRINT

The highest german court repelled the earlier verdict. In the final verdict stands nothing of that anymore, on contrary. The decision to slam planes into building were made in Afghanistan - not in Hamburg not earlier than end of 1999.

Die zu der Hamburger Gruppe um Atta sowie deren Zielen und ihrer Entwicklung vorliegenden Ermittlungserkenntnisse sprechen demgegenüber vielmehr dafür, dass die Gruppe sich, wie vorstehend unter Ziffer 1. ausgeführt, zunächst aus sich heraus gebildet und zu einer terroristischen Vereinigung im Sinne des § 129a Abs. 1 StGB mit dem Ziel der Umsetzung des so genannten „Heiligen Krieges“ der Islamisten durch Begehung von Attentaten entwickelt und sodann erst mit Beginn der Afghanistanaufenthalte verschiedener Mitglieder ab Ende 1999/Anfang 2000 zum Zwecke der Konkretisierung und Umsetzung ihrer noch allgemeinen Attentatspläne Kontakt zu dem islamistischen Terroristennetzwerk Al Qaida aufgenommen hat. "
http://www.jurawelt.com/gerichtsurteile/strafrecht/olg/9098

False correction

"As far as I understand the (final) verdict the following witness-accounts, you quoted, were -not- taken credible enough:"

Not true, misleading, inaccurate, etc. etc.

Das Hanseatische Oberlandesgericht Hamburg hat den Angeklagten El Motassadeq im Zusammenhang mit den Anschlägen in den USA vom 11. September 2001 wegen Mitgliedschaft in einer terroristischen Vereinigung, Beihilfe zum Mord in 3066 Fällen sowie zum versuchten Mord und zur gefährlichen Körperverletzung in fünf Fällen zu einer Freiheitsstrafe von fünfzehn Jahren verurteilt, weil er an Planung und Vorbereitung der Anschläge beteiligt gewesen sei. Der Angeklagte hatte dagegen bestritten, von den Anschlagsplänen gewußt zu haben. Auf seine Revision hat der für Staatsschutzsachen zuständige 3. Strafsenat des Bundesgerichtshofs das Urteil des Oberlandesgerichts heute aufgehoben und die Sache zur erneuten Verhandlung zurückverwiesen. Grund für die Aufhebung ist, daß die Beweiswürdigung des Oberlandesgerichts rechtlicher Prüfung nicht standhält.

Nach den Feststellungen des Oberlandesgerichts befindet sich der an den Anschlägen beteiligte Ramzi Binalshib im Gewahrsam von US-Behörden. Er konnte im Verfahren gegen den Angeklagten nicht vernommen werden, weil die US-Regierung die hierzu erforderliche Mitwirkung verweigerte. Auch konnte nicht geklärt werden, ob Binalshib bei seinen Vernehmungen in den USA Angaben dazu machte, ob der Angeklagte in die Planung und Vorbereitung der Anschläge einbezogen war. Ein zu den Ermittlungen in den USA vernommener FBI-Beamter hatte zu dieser Frage keine Aussagegenehmigung. Die Protokolle über geheimdienstliche Vernehmungen Binalshibs, die dem Bundesnachrichtendienst und dem Bundeskriminalamt übermittelt worden waren, hat das Bundeskanzleramt bzw. das Bundesinnenministerium gesperrt.

http://www.jurawelt.com/gerichtsurteile/strafrecht/landesverfg/8921

The dispute was about whether or not Mounir al-Motassadeq had precise advance knowledge of the coming attacks or if he was to be convicted of "membership of a terrorist organization" alone or accessory to mass murder. The paragraph above basically says that because the US has Ramzi bin al-Shibh in custody and refused German authorities access to him or his statements, German authorities decided that the interests of secrecy held by German and US authorities cannot be allowed to harm Motassadeq's case. Perfectly valid objections, one ought to err on the side of innocence when deciding if a defendant ought to be jailed, these are different considerations from those made by journalists and historians, who don't jail people but chronicle their activities..... Hence the regional appellate court annulled the sentence and referred it back to the lower court.

Guess what happened?

Eventually the supreme court convicted Motassadeq and he was jailed for fifteen years, overturning the appeal you imply is the latest news in the matter.

This has been a long back-and-forth between various courts. None of those courts implied the incident with the librarian was false, merely that there was doubt about the extent of Motassadeq's prior knowledge and involvement, and that bin al-Shibh's testimony would be crucial (either exculpatory or incriminating), but due to his inaccessibility, they would err on the side of innocence. That's all there was to it.

Eventually Motassadeq lost that battle with the German courts but you decide not to mention this. Why?

You say: "As well as the following event, this should have happened also early 1999:"

Yes and it supports my case and undermines yours. What's your point?

You say: "By the way: The date is not correct. According to the statement of the court, this prediction happened early 1999 not May 2000! False Information"

I could be picky and say they didn't say "in May 2000" by "by May 2000", but let's assume your objection about the date is valid; that doesn't mean it amounts to "false information", because the incident still happened but on another date.

"The highest german court repelled the earlier verdict. In the final verdict stands nothing of that anymore, on contrary. The decision to slam planes into building were made in Afghanistan - not in Hamburg not earlier than end of 1999."

Almost everything about this sentence is misleading and false.

Let's go back to the earlier trigger of discussion:

Was Atta a religious zealot? Was he determined to kill? Who did he work for?

On each and every count, I am right, you are wrong, and no amount of opportunistic obfuscation using German legalese you hope will confuse Americans (but not me) will bail you out.

The final verdict rests with the supreme court, Motassadeq was convicted, and whatever was initially brought forth by the lower court was never specifically refuted, and even if it had been, the multitude of available German court records you yourself introduced into the discussion forcefully prove my point while destroying yours.

It is what it is. 9/11 hijackers existed and were anything but atheist.

Please take into account the

Please take into account the new conviction, from which I have already quoted. http://www.jurawelt.com/gerichtsurteile/strafrecht/olg/9098

Atta & Co did not plan to slam planes into building not before 2000 according to the "new" verdict.
The conversations, you quoted, should have happend in early 1999!

Here it stands:

"... sodann erst mit Beginn der Afghanistanaufenthalte verschiedener Mitglieder ab Ende 1999/Anfang 2000 zum Zwecke der Konkretisierung und Umsetzung ihrer noch allgemeinen Attentatspläne Kontakt zu dem islamistischen Terroristennetzwerk Al Qaida aufgenommen hat. "

Defending the official story

First of all, your conviction, isn't 'new', bio. This has already been discussed. Stop rehashing what has already been refuted. The final verdict as it is now, was delivered by the German Federal Supreme Court.

Let's assess the facts:

Late 1997-Early 1998: 9/11 Hijacker Atta Disappears from Germany for Months; He Possibly Trains in Afghanistan with Bin Al-Shibh

Future 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta leaves Hamburg for some time in late 1997 and early 1998, and he may go to militant training camps in Afghanistan, possibly with hijacker associate Ramzi bin al-Shibh. When Atta returns in the spring of 1998 he tells his roommate that he has been on another pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca, although author Terry McDermott will later note, “He had been on hajj just 18 months earlier, and it would be unlikely for a student—even one so devout—to go twice so quickly or stay so long.” This is Atta’s longest absence since arriving in Hamburg, and there is no record of him spending any substantial portion of it at home in Cairo. According to McDermott, he leaves Hamburg “as he usually did over the winter holiday.” [McDermott, 2005, pp. 57] But according to the 9/11 Commission, the gap is in February-March 1998, “a period for which there is no evidence of his presence in Germany.” Atta’s friends hold a party for him on his return, which is unusual for a student who has just returned from home. After returning to Germany, Atta applies for a new passport, something he will also do after returning from Afghanistan in early 2000 (see Late 1999). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 167] There are other unexplained absences from Hamburg by members of the same cell around this time (see Summer-Winter 1998). Although the 9/11 Commission, based on information obtained from detainees during interrogation, will say that Atta and his associates do not travel to Afghanistan and join al-Qaeda until late 1999, some commentators will disagree and say that this happens earlier. [McDermott, 2005, pp. 57]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate97attadisappears#alate97attadisappears

Summer-Winter 1998: Bin Al-Shibh and Alshehhi Not in Hamburg, Possibly Visiting Afghanistan

Two members of the Hamburg cell comprising some of the lead 9/11 hijackers and their associates are absent from the city for periods. Ramzi bin al-Shibh vanishes from Germany over the summer, it is unclear where he goes. Marwan Alshehhi is unaccounted for over a period of three months. Before disappearing he withdraws over $5,000 from his bank and, while he is gone, his normally active credit card accounts are dormant. He makes no charges on them or withdrawals from ATM machines between September 3 and early December. Bin al-Shibh is again absent in the winter. Mohamed Atta is also absent from Hamburg around the same time (see Late 1997-Early 1998). Commenting on the disappearances, author Terry McDermott will say, “Practically, there is only one place they likely would have gone—Afghanistan.” [McDermott, 2005, pp. 57]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aearly99ksmhamburg#aearly99ksmhamburg

Between January and October 1999: Hamburg Cell Downloads Flight Training Software

According to German investigations, by at least this time, the al-Qaeda Hamburg cell including Mohamed Atta, Marwan Alshehhi, Ziad Jarrah, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh has come up with the idea of attacking the US using airplanes. This theory is based on witness statements and the discovery by the German police of a flight simulator file on a computer used by the Hamburg cell that was downloaded between January and October 1999. [Washington Post, 9/11/2002; Burke, 2004, pp. 244] Both Atta and Alshehhi start taking lessons on ultralight aircraft this year (see April 1999, October 1999, and December 1999). Some suggest they first joined the 9/11 plot in early 1999 (see Early 1999). However, the 9/11 Commission claims that the 9/11 plot was hatched by al-Qaeda’s leadership and was communicated to the Hamburg al-Qaeda cell in Afghanistan in December 1999. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 165-169]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1099flightsoftrware#a1099flightsoftrware

April 1999: 9/11 Hijackers Atta and Alshehhi Seen Near Philippine Flight School

9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta takes flying lessons in the Philippines, and 9/11 hijacker Marwan Alshehhi is with him. They stay at the Woodland Park Resort Hotel near Angeles City, which is about 60 miles north of Manila and near the formerly US controlled Clark Air Base. Victoria Brocoy, a chambermaid at the hotel, will later claim that Atta stayed at the hotel for about a week while he learned to fly ultra-light planes at the nearby Angeles City Flying Club. [Gulf News, 9/29/2001; Gulf News, 10/2/2001] She also says, “He was not friendly. If you say hello to him, he doesn’t answer. If he asks for a towel, you do not enter his room. He takes it at the door.… Many times I saw him let a girl go at the gate in the morning. It was always a different girl.” [International Herald Tribune, 10/5/2001] Atta stays with some other men who call him Mohamed. She recalls that one of them is Marwan Alshehhi, who is treated like Atta’s sidekick. However, there are no recollections of Alshehhi going to the nearby flight school. [Manila Times, 10/2/2001; Gulf News, 10/2/2001] She says Atta was hosted by a Jordanian named Samir, who speaks Filipino and runs a travel agency in Manila. She adds that many Arab guests stayed at the hotel between 1997 and 1999, and Samir always accompanied them. Samir denies knowing any of the hijackers. [Gulf News, 9/29/2001; Manila Times, 10/2/2001; International Herald Tribune, 10/5/2001] The Philippine military will later confirm that Atta and Alshehhi were at the hotel after finding four other employees who claim to have seen them in 1999. Other locals, such as the manager of a nearby restaurant, also recall seeing them. [Philippine Star, 10/1/2001; Gulf News, 10/2/2001; International Herald Tribune, 10/5/2001; Asia Times, 10/11/2001] Atta and/or Alshehhi were seen at the same resort in 1997 (see 1997) and will return to it later in 1999 (see December 1999). A leader of a militant group connected to al-Qaeda later confesses to helping 9/11 hijacker pilots while they were in this area (see Shortly After October 5, 2005).

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0499woodland#a0499woodland

Mid-1996-September 11, 2001: KSM Travels World; Involved in Many Al-Qaeda Operations

After fleeing Qatar, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) travels the world and plans many al-Qaeda operations. He previously was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the Operation Bojinka plot. [Time, 1/20/2003] He is apparently involved in the 1998 US embassy bombings (see 10:35-10:39 a.m., August 7, 1998), the 2000 USS Cole bombing (see October 12, 2000), and other attacks. One US official later says, “There is a clear operational link between him and the execution of most, if not all, of the al-Qaeda plots over the past five years.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/22/2002] He lives in Prague, Czech Republic, through much of 1997. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002] By 1999, he is living in Germany and visiting with the hijackers there. [New York Times, 6/8/2002; New York Times, 9/22/2002] Using 60 aliases and as many passports, he travels through Europe, Africa, the Persian Gulf, Southeast Asia and South America, personally setting up al-Qaeda cells. [Los Angeles Times, 12/22/2002; Time, 1/20/2003]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=amid96mohammed#amid96mohammed

"9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is in Hamburg several times in 1999 and comes to the apartment. However, although there is a $2 million reward for Mohammed since 1998, the US apparently fails to tell Germany what it knows about him (see 1999). "

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a110198marien#a110198marien

1999: KSM Repeatedly Visits 9/11 Hijacker Atta and Others in Al-Qaeda’s Hamburg Cell

9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) “repeatedly” visits 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and others in the Hamburg al-Qaeda cell. [Associated Press, 8/24/2002] US and German officials say a number of sources place KSM at Atta’s Hamburg apartment, although when he visits, or who he visits while he is there, is unclear. [Los Angeles Times, 6/6/2002; New York Times, 11/4/2002] However, it would be logical to conclude that he visits Atta’s housemate Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, since investigators believe he is the “key contact between the pilots” and KSM. [Los Angeles Times, 1/27/2003] KSM is living elsewhere in Germany at the time. [New York Times, 9/22/2002] German intelligence monitors the apartment in 1999 but apparently does not notice KSM. US investigators have been searching for Mohammed since 1996, but apparently never tell the Germans what they know about him. [New York Times, 11/4/2002] Even after 9/11, German investigators will complain that US investigators do not tell them what they know about KSM living in Germany until they read it in the newspapers in June 2002. [New York Times, 6/11/2002]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1999ksmvisit#a1999ksmvisit

Early 1999: KSM Allegedly Works on 9/11 Plot in Hamburg

Counterterrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna will later claim that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) visits Hamburg at this time and meets with 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and hijacker associate Ramzi bin al-Shibh. Together, they make plans to carry out the 9/11 attacks in the US. [Gunaratna, 2003, pp. xxx] Other accounts claim KSM repeatedly visits Hamburg this year but do not definitively state who he meets (see 1999). The 9/11 Commission will later claim that the Hamburg al-Qaeda cell including Atta and bin al-Shibh will not be asked to join the 9/11 attacks until late 1999 in Afghanistan (see Between January and October 1999).

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aearly99ksmhamburg#aearly99ksmhamburg

You wouldn't want to defend... the official story... would you? ;-)

Ignoring for the moment that I've already dealt with this malarkey several times now, let's look at your quote again.

"... sodann erst mit Beginn der Afghanistanaufenthalte verschiedener Mitglieder ab Ende 1999/Anfang 2000 zum Zwecke der Konkretisierung und Umsetzung ihrer noch allgemeinen Attentatspläne Kontakt zu dem islamistischen Terroristennetzwerk Al Qaida aufgenommen hat."

Please translate "Konkretisierung" for 911blogger, bio. Does it convey conjuring some idea out of the blue? Is that position supported by the evidence?

The obsolete court verdict you are citing, which was overruled by the German Federal Supreme Court, ... apprently sides with the 9/11 Commission, and even if we take your misrepresentation of their words as fact, I would still argue they are wrong. Again, the ruling you are citing was overruled by the German Federal Supreme Court.

Do you understand and acknowledge this immutable fact, bio?

Moreover, the overruled ruling you are citing does not specifically refute the incident with the librarian, which for all intents and purposes, since it involves al-Shehhi, is secondary to the topic at hand, because....

These are the questions I was originally asked, the questions which triggered this pointless back-and-forth between you and me:

  • "Who did Atta work for?"
  • "Was Atta a devout Muslim?"
  • "Produce the evidence that he was motivated to attack America in the name of Islam."

My answers were truthful and factually accurate.

Now let's have yours.

Signing off, SnowCrash

2nd in Command, Total MIHOP Warrior Alliance

Where's the 9/11 Truth?

So, where, one might ask, is the 9/11 Truth in all of this?

How about:

Surveillance of Bahaji - From the very beginning, the apartment is under surveillance by German intelligence, because of investigations into businessman Mamoun Darkazanli that connect to Bahaji.

(...)

Surveillance of El Motassadeq - German intelligence monitors the apartment off and on for months, and wiretaps Mounir El Motassadeq, an associate of the apartment-mates who will later be convicted for assisting the 9/11 plot, but apparently it does not find any indication of suspicious activity

(...)

Surveillance of Zammar - Zammar, a talkative man who has trouble keeping secrets (LOL! - SC), does not live at the apartment, but he is a frequent visitor to the many late night meetings there.

(...)

The CIA also allegedly starts monitoring Atta in early 2000 while he is living at the apartment, and does not tell Germany of the surveillance.

Yet:

"No Direct German Surveillance of the Apartment? - Yet, even though people like Zammar who frequently phone and visit the apartment are monitored, German officials will later claim that the apartment itself is never bugged."

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a110198marien#a110198marien

LOL! Yeah right...

They never saw 9/11 coming!

German intelligence is tapping the telephone of al-Qaeda operative Mohammed Haydar Zammar, and on this date, Zammar gets a call from a “Marwan.” This is later found to be future 9/11 hijacker Marwan Alshehhi. Marwan talks about mundane things, like his studies in Bonn, Germany, and promises to come to Hamburg in a few months. German investigators trace the telephone number and determine the call came from a mobile phone registered in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). [US Congress, 7/24/2003 pdf file; Deutsche Presse-Agentur (Hamburg), 8/13/2003; New York Times, 2/24/2004] Although the call is short and seemingly innocuous, according to Vanity Fair, some “parts of the conversation seemed redolent of some kind of conspiratorial code.” For instance, at one point, Alshehhi says, “I’ve heard your mother died.” Zammar replies: “Yes, she passed on. She left me alone.” Alshehhi then asks: “But your father didn’t travel with you? I’ve seen him here.” Zammar answers, “No, my father is here.” Regarding whether or not it actually is code, a senior German official will later say: “Our desk officer had a certain feeling about that call.… You can say it was his nose—not that there was any single statement, but he had a feeling that there could be more behind it.” The desk officer writes a report about the call. Then, about a month later, the BfV (German domestic intelligence) will contact the CIA and ask for more information about men from the UAE named Marwan, and for help in tracing the phone number (see March 1999).

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a013199zammaraalshehhi#a013199zammaraalshehhi

And remember, the CIA had the Al Qaeda switchboard in Sana'a under surveillance too!

Late August 1998: US Intelligence Community Begins Joint Surveillance of Al-Qaeda Communications Hub
(...)

The US intelligence community now begins a joint effort to monitor the number. The NSA and CIA jointly plant bugs inside the house, tap the phones, and monitor visitors with spy satellites.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0898captured#a0898captured

LOL! Still couldn't connect the dots!

But what does it all matter? After all, we know from Kevin Ryan's presentation that "Muslims did not commit 9/11" and from his other work that we should more or less brush aside Kevin Fenton's book, Duffy & Nowosielski's work, Paul Thompson's website, Schopmeyer's book, Bob Graham's whistleblowing and Richard Clarke's indignation because they promote the hijacker "myth" as well as war with Saudi Arabia.

No, all of this was "staged" or is part of a "limited hangout" peddled by "infiltrators" who "stalk the comment section". That's 9/11 Truth for ya: held hostage by paranoid, stubborn blowhards emotionally invested in a Northwoods plane swap scenario from the Sixties which was not what happened in 2001.

I was just focused on

I was just focused on studying of the verdicts and did not know of any of these news-reports. It makes the impression, that the official story is and this verdict, I have quoted, could be wrong.

Details about the librarian

I leave it up to others to paste this in Google Translate, I don't have time to translate this now, but at the same time it's too relevant to pass up.

Dass die beteiligten Personen spätestens im Frühjahr 1999 den Tatentschluss im Sinne obiger Feststellungen fassten, ergibt sich nach Auffassung des Senates daraus, dass Al. sich - wie oben dargestellt - in der Bibliothek des Rechenzentrums gegenüber der Bibliotheksmitabeiterin Du. äußerte.

Dass Al. sich im Frühjahr 1999 so äußerte, beruht auf der Aussage der Zeugin Du. Diese Aussage ist glaubhaft. Die Zeugin, bei der kein Grund erkennbar ist, warum sie Al. oder den Angeklagten bewusst zu Unrecht belasten sollte, und die durch ihr bescheidenes Auftreten den Eindruck vermittelt hat. dass sie sich nicht in den Vordergrund spielen oder wichtig machen wollte, hat den Geschehensablauf plastisch und detailliert geschildert. Sie hat bekundet, Al. vor dem besagten Vorfall, nämlich schon ab 1997, und auch nach dem Vorfall des öfteren in der Bibliothek gesehen zu haben, fast immer in Begleitung anderer orientalisch aussehender Männer. Häufig sei Al. in Begleitung At.s gewesen. Al. und At. habe sie dann später im Rahmen der Berichterstattung über den 11. September 2001 und auf Fahndungsplakaten eindeutig wiedererkannt. Al. habe sie an seiner ihres Erachtens charakteristischen Kopfform, seiner Haartracht, seiner Haarfarbe, seinen Augen und seiner Statur identifizieren können. Die Inaugenscheinnahme von Lichtbildern des Al. hat in Übereinstimmung mit dahingehenden Angaben des Angeklagten ergeben, dass Al. von auffallend kräftiger bis korpulenter Statur war. Hinsichtlich der Barttracht des Al. hat die Zeugin erklärt, manchmal habe er einen „Dreitagebart", eine gewisse Zeit ein „Bärtchen über und unter dem Mund" und manchmal einen längeren Bart getragen. Wie der Bart Al.s im Frühjahr 1999 beschaffen gewesen sei, erinnere sie nicht. Al., At. und deren Begleiter hätten in der Bibliothek fast immer an den beiden Computern gearbeitet und den Internetanschluss genutzt. Mit Ausnahme des genannten Vorfalles seien sie ruhig und unauffällig gewesen. Daher habe sich ihr das in Rede stehende Geschehen besonders eingeprägt, das damit begonnen habe, dass Al., At. und etwa drei weitere Männer sich an einem Nachmittag ungewöhnlich lautstark im Bereich der Computerplätze unterhalten hätten. Al. habe „wie wild" eine Computertastatur betätigt, es sei aus der Gruppe häufiger das Wort „Amerika" zu hören gewesen. Al. sei dann zu ihrem - Frau Du.s - Arbeitsplatz gekommen und habe sich wie dargestellt geäußert.

Es sei so aus Al. „herausgebrochen", als habe er die Kontrolle verloren. Sie erinnere sich noch daran, dass Al. im Zusammenhang mit seiner Ankündigung auch das World Trade Center erwähnt habe, wobei sie dies nicht recht habe einordnen können und damals vermutet habe, diese Bemerkung bezöge sich auf einen früheren Anschlag auf das World Trade Center. Besagter Vorfall habe sich im späten Frühjahr 1999 an einem Nachmittag zugetragen, kurz vor Schließung der Bibliothek. Neben ihr habe Jan., ein Bekannter, der sie habe abholen wollen, gestanden. Sie sei der Meinung, dass ihr Bekannter die Äußerungen des Al. hätte mitbekommen müssen. Auf Vorhalt einer Erklärung des Jan. gegenüber der Polizei, er erinnere ein solches Geschehen nicht, hat die Zeugin ausgesagt, dies verstehe sie nicht. Sehr plastisch ist auch die weitere Aussage der Zeugin: Als Al. einige Tage nach dem Vorfall das nächste Mal in der Bibliothek gewesen sei, habe er, als er sie gesehen habe, angefangen, stark zu schwitzen, er sei ungewöhnlich freundlich, fast unterwürfig gewesen, so als sei ihm etwas peinlich. Wegen des unmittelbaren zeitlichen Zusammenhanges mit dem Vorfall sei sie der Meinung, dass ihm der besagte Auftritt unangenehm gewesen sei. Nachdem nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 Fotos von Al. und At. veröffentlicht worden seien, habe sie einen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Vorfall und den Anschlägen vermutet und sich bei der Polizei gemeldet. Ohne von Verfahrensbeteiligten darauf angesprochen worden zu sein hat die Zeugin weiter bekundet, sie habe sich in Vorbereitung auf die polizeiliche Vernehmung tagebuchartige Notizen über ihre Wahrnehmungen betreffend Al., At. und deren Begleiter gemacht. Da der Teil, der nach ihrer Meinung das Kerngeschehen gewesen sei, ihr noch sehr gut in Erinnerung und auch Anlass gewesen sei, sich bei der Polizei zu melden, habe sie sich diese Äußerungen des Al. nicht erst schriftlich in Erinnerung rufen müssen und daher nicht notiert. Vielmehr sei es ihr bei der Fertigung der Notizen darum gegangen, in assoziativer Form sich Klarheit über das Randgeschehen und vermeintliche Nebensächlichkeiten zu verschaffen.

Es sei so etwas wie ein „individuelles brain storming“ gewesen. Nach Auffassung des Senates hat die Zeugin damit plausibel erklärt, aus welchem Grund sie die auch ihres Erachtens wichtigen Äußerungen des Al. nicht notiert hat. Die Aussage der Zeugin Du. war auch in Randbereichen plastisch und von Originalität gekennzeichnet. So hat die Zeugin einen Besuch At.s, Ja.s und weiterer, ihr nicht erinnerlicher Männer in der Bibliothek geschildert, der damit geendet habe, dass die Männer, At. voran, in einer Art Karawane die Bibliothek verlassen hätten, wobei Ja.. der als Letzter in der Reihe gewesen sei. ihr in einer Weise zugezwinkert habe, die sie als Zeichen einer gewissen Selbstironie bezüglich der ungewöhnlichen Art des Abmarsches gewertet habe. Der Glaubhaftigkeit der Aussage der Zeugin Du. steht nicht entgegen, dass der Zeuge Jan. bekundet hat, einen solchen Vorfall nicht zu erinnern. Richtig sei, dass er Frau Du. in der fraglichen Zeit einige Male nachmittags, kurz vor Schließung der Bibliothek dort abgeholt habe. Wie von ihm auch schon nach den Anschlägen gegenüber der Polizei erklärt, habe er keine Erinnerung an ein solches Geschehen. Nur auf den ersten Blick erscheint es wenig nachvollziehbar, dass der Zeuge, wenn denn Al. sich in der in Rede stehenden Art und Weise geäußert hat, solches nicht erinnert. Der Zeuge Jan. hat aber von sich aus seine Zeugentauglichkeit stark relativiert. Er hat nämlich erklärt, er nehme nur sehr selektiv wahr, Wahrgenommenes vergesse er unwiederbringlich, wenn das Wahrgenommene für ihn keine Bedeutung gehabt habe. Es sei bei ihm häufig so, als seien Informationen gewissermaßen „gelöscht". Bezogen auf die von der Zeugin Du. bekundeten Äußerungen des Al. hat der Zeuge Jan. erklärt, er erinnere eine derartige Situation eines Herantretens eines Bibliotheksnutzers an Frau Du. nicht und könne eine solche Situation gedanklich nicht reproduzieren. Er könne deshalb auch nicht sagen, ob er derartige Äußerungen überhaupt nicht wahrgenommen oder aber wahrgenommen und vergessen habe. Es sei auch gut möglich, dass für ihn eine Situation eines Herantretens eines Bibliotheksnutzers an Frau Du. ohne Bedeutung gewesen sei und er deshalb auf etwaige Äußerungen in einer solchen Situation nicht geachtet habe. Er habe nämlich damals sein Studium der Bibliothekswissenschaft gerade abgeschlossen gehabt und sei als Nachfolger von Frau Du. als Bibliotheksmitarbeiter vorgesehen gewesen und habe sich daher für die Ausstattung der Bibliothek und die dortigen Arbeilsabläufe besonders interessiert und sich auf diese auch konzentriert. Der Glaubhaftigkeit der Aussage der Zeugin Du., insbesondere in Bezug auf ihre Bekundung, Al. vor dem besagten Vorfall, vielleicht schon seit 1997 des öfteren in der Bibliothek gesehen zu haben, steht auch nicht entgegen, dass Al. in der ersten Jahreshälfte 1999 in Bonn wohnte und das dortige Studienkolleg mit genereller Anwesenheitspflicht besuchte.

Der Zeuge Ni. hat bekundet, Al. Anfang 1999 häufiger in Hamburg, nämlich in der Wohnung Marienstraße gesehen zu haben, wobei offen geblieben ist, ob Ni. Al. an Werktagen, Wochenenden oder Feiertagen gesehen hat, Diese Aussage Ni. wird jedenfalls zum Teil durch die Aussage der beim Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) tätigen Kriminalbeamtin Wal. bestätigt, nach der am 1.4.99. Gründonnerstag, unter Einatz der EC-Karte des Al. am Bahnhof Hamburg-Marburg eine Fahrkarte gekauft wurde. Soweit Anwesenheiten Al.s in der ersten Hälfte des Jahres 1999 in Bonn festgestellt werden konnten, erfassen diese den Zeitraum nicht lückenlos. Der Zeuge Graff, der schon 1999 Direktor des Studienkollegs in Bonn war, hat bekundet, Al. habe wie alle Studierenden des Kollegs auch 1999 um Ostern herum zwei Wochen Ferien gehabt. Ob Al. diese zwei Wochen in Bonn verbracht habe, könne er nicht sagen. Entsprechendes gelte für zwei unterrichtsfreie Tage in der Karnevalszeit. Er - Graff - habe festgestellt, dass Al. abgesehen von der genannten unterrichtsfreien Zeit drei Fehltage im Mai 1999 gehabt habe und nach dem 24.5.99 nicht mehr erschienen sei. Aus den verlesenen Unterlagen über das Konto des Al. bei der Dresdner Bank in Bonn/Bad Godesberg lässt sich auch in der Kombination mit der Aussage des Zeugen Graff nicht der Schluss ziehen, Al. habe sich nur bis auf seltene Ausnahmen ausschließlich in Bonn aufgehalten. Zwar hat die Auswertung dieser Unterlagen ergeben, dass Al. in der ersten Hälfte des Jahres 1999 Geld nur in Bonn und nicht in Hamburg abgehoben hat, da derartige Abhebungen aber auch in der Woche nicht täglich erfolgten, kann obiger Schluss nicht gezogen werden.

Der Senat schließt aus den oben beschriebenen Umständen der Äußerungen Al.s und aus Al.s späterem, fast unterwürfigem Verhalten gegenüber Frau Du., dass Al. erkannt hatte, mit seinen unvorsichtigen Äußerungen einen Fehler begangen zu haben.

Der Senat ist davon überzeugt, dass Al. mit diesen Äußerungen das bereits beschlossene und dann am 11. September 200] realisierte Vorhaben beschrieben hat. Die Wortwahl - „Ihr werdet noch sehen..." - zeigt eindeutig, dass Al. ein aus damaliger Sicht künftiges, spektakuläres Ereignis beschrieb, ein Ereignis. bei welchem Al. „tausende von Toten" erwartete. Dass die USA massiv getroffen werden sollten, ergibt sich daraus, dass Al. in unmittelbarem Zusammenhang mit den Äußerungen Amerika und dessen damaligen Präsidenten Clinton heftig beschimpfte. Dass als potentielles Ziel das World Trade Center ins Auge gefasst war, zeigt die Erwähnung dieses symbolträchtigen Gebäudes. Diese Prophezeiung deckt sich mit der Realität vom 11. September 2001.

Dass Frau Du. im Frühjahr 1999 die Erwähnung des World Trade Center aus verständlichen Gründen in Verbindung mit einem früheren Anschlag auf dieses Gebäude brachte, steht dem von dem Senat gezogenen Schluss nicht entgegen.

http://www.jurawelt.com/gerichtsurteile/strafrecht/olg/8919?OUTPUTFORMAT=PRINT

I do not understand, why you

I do not understand, why you paste the old verdict, which was overruled.
This is misleding.

Your overruling

was itself overruled, by the German Federal Supreme Court. The librarian incident was never officially refuted, and isn't mutually exclusive, even with the overruled ruling by the Higher Regional Court, but that point is moot, because the ruling you cite was itself overruled.

Do you acknowledge this immutable fact?

Your statements are false and misleading, and this has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Limiting and inhibiting the effective dissemination of 9/11...

I have noticed over recent years that a small crew of ivory-tower carpers often try to inhibit the effective dissemination of the 9/11 Cover-up. It seems that whenever someone or a group is reaching out effectively to others, suddenly that person or group finds themselves at the brunt of very strained, carping, lengthy fault finding and criticism. ...very strained fault finding.

On this thread, the whole contention had started before this thread because a large religious group was effectively being informed about the 9/11 Cover-up. Some carpers did not want this religious group of people to hear about the 9/11 Cover-up.

Evidently, made out by the carpers, there is a "list" of groups who are not supposed to be informed about 9/11. Evidently, these carpers do not like independent action, but try to enforce only select actions and only select words dictated by their own small carping forums.
Evidently, these carpers do not like to see millions of people informed about the 9/11 Cover-up. Instead, these carpers prefer to do "word battle" against those folks who are informing others.

Quite Obvious....

to most of us here.

I second that

Good job Kevin!!! Don't waste too much of your energy in pointless debates.

Show "Yea Kevin" by kdub

Some are annoyed because Ryan addressed a Muslim group

... This seems to be the underlying gripe.

Lots of words. But the truth is always simple.

Don't be naive.

Presenting information to any Muslims is not the issue.

"Do you know these Satanic Jews..."

Have you been paying any attention at all? Followed any links?

If Aidan was REALLY worried about divide and conquer, he would be questioning why Kevin and Richard would work with this seperatist and divisionist.

Hey downvoters!

Anyone have the gaul to comment on why they voted this comment down? Do you think the jews are controlled by Satan and running hollywood? Common please....please tell us why you voted this down. Just curious. Did anyone watch this clip Nor Cal posted and think, 'boy, these folks on the thread are being to harsh on this guy"? Anyone? Not likely. Kevin Ryan won't even reply to some basic question about his views on 9/11 (do you think the cellphone calls were fake, do you understand a plane hit the pentagon), let alone why Kevin or Gage thought it was a productive move to speak about 9/11 truth next to a man like FarraCON.

As soon as people got critical, Kev Ry and others put up 2 other threads about this event...... where Steven Jones and co. praised this appearance. Yuck! As someone who spoke to me as though they were a good christian, and talked about he and his wife's involvement in your church when I met you 2006 (S. Jones), you should be ashamed of yourself.

Calm the rhetoric, everyone. (Myself included)

It is apparent that this thread is full of heated debate.

What is really a bummer is watching people like Aidan, Joe, Tom, Kevin and others try to insinuate that SnowCrash, Jimd, myself or others are some secret team of not so 9/11 truthers.

C'mon. Really? Could there be disagreements without even more wild theories? Are we all adult enough?

I mean, I started argiung with Kevin because I think working with the person who helped kill Malcolm X is actually a bad idea. I think that working with the person who helped kill Malcolm X and calls white people "devils" consistently might not actually be a good way to reach the black/muslim community. Many black/muslims in the US have a distaste and distrust of Farrakhan, and they see through his show. Surely everyone here can see that Farrakhan knows how to work a crowd. But, yes, many still follow him. Congrats on the opportunity of such a large crowd.

Myself and others at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth felt this was a bad idea only after extra hours of research on Farrakhan.

I left AE, and another person, a board member who we have not heard from on this thread, left AE too. It was very serious if you care for the health of AE. I am a good worker, the board member who left carries the same weight as Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage. I am not alone in my position, nor do I regret making my position so clear.

Kevin took the sensitive situation of working with Farrakhan and said something at the very intro to the presentation he should have known would get scrutinized, if not by the media, than by someone. And that is OK with me.

That is what the debate here is about now.

DO NOT CONFUSE PASSIONATE AND HEATED DEBATE FOR INFILTRATION OF THIS MOVEMENT.

Kevin has been asked some simple questions, and he has chosen not to respond. Had this been the anyone outside of the club, say like Larry Silverstien, we would all want him to answer the question. Kevin Ryan is not Larry Silverstien, but he is accountable just like everyone else.

The concept is simple and has been repeated over and over and over: You can know that hijackers were involved on 9/11 and that 9/11 could not have happened without the CIA and other agencies. (That means we don't support the OCT.)

So please stop the petty insinuations.

If Kevin Ryan does NOT believe hijackers existed, than there will be more heated debate.

If Kevin Ryan does beleive hijackers existed, than there will be less heated debate.

Why? Because Kevin Ryan goes to speak to large audinces, and it would be best if all help to make those presentations as factually acurrate as possible.

I truly believe that accuracy and acting moderately within reason is the best way forward for 9/11 truth.

We all have set boundries and limits. I don't see many of you promoting Judy Woods and plane fakery at the WTC, thankfully. Most of us should know that that kind of discussion, beyond not being factual, gets us no where in the large scheme of things. Some boundries are easier to see than others.

Please don't attack me, SC, Jim or others as some "secret team' of "new truthers" here "to direct" you all away from the truth, just for having our own researched opinions.

Hands need to shake, sure.

But, there is nothing wrong with debate and research, even if it gets heated, this is a part of how our Country was founded I do believe.

Kevin, if you care to answer me on this last question, because I am trying to build up the bridges again, I would appreciate it.

Have you read Disconnecting the Dots, and if you have not may I buy you a copy to read?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

I know no one here is an agent of anything but their own free will, lets all try to remember that.

I've only thought

...I was dealing with concerted disinformation tactics on very few occasions. Seeing no planers coordinate (including spontaneous public "conversions" of participants who seemed to be in coordination with their "converters" from the get-go) was one.

I treat such matters just as I would treat other research: I prefer positive direct evidence. A "hunch" is not enough.

Since I know a "Sunstein Infiltrator" is a product of DRG-fans' imagination, because pysops are conducted under the direction of the Pentagon, the CIA and/or the NSA and not under the supervision of Cass Sunstein (AFAIK), I find the constant referral to these fictional bogeymen immature and annoying.

Moreover, since I know myself and therefore know such allegations towards me are false, I am in a perfect position to verify the reasoning skills of people who make such allegations. So.... what I'm seeing is a cornucopia of offensive research error, which is endemic in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

My wish would be for the 9/11 Truth Movement to be razor sharp and indefatigably meticulous when conducting research and promoting said research through activism. In IT, we speak of "Soll" and "Ist" situations, derived from German "Should" and "Is". "Soll" would be meticulous research of the highest standards (Paul Thompson comes to mind) and "Ist" is what we have today: an epistemological mess spearheaded by a man who writes many books (quantity), many of whom contain serious flaws (quality) which have firmly settled in the minds of millions now making up the Truth Movement demographic.

No hijacker theory is one such flaw, and like many flaws before it, it diminishes this movement's credibility and needlessly sucks up time and resources.

I realize that speaking out against this is blasphemy in a mostly homomorphic group whose creed is "9/11 Was An Inside Job" and whose only education on Islamic terrorism is from David Ray Griffin books and "The Power Of Nightmares".

However, nothing could be more damaging to this movement then to resign in silent conformism to avoid the unpleasant confrontation which would ensue if the conventional, prevailing wisdom among truthers is questioned. Especially since most truthers consider themselves highly skilled scientists and researchers, insisting that these fictional skills require improvement is deemed offensive and will result in a backlash, usually in the form of name calling and snitchjacketing.

I've noticed informal and formal logic is not taught in schools. There you have it: one of several big contributors to the present situation. I don't know how much can be expected from people who feel drawn to participate in 9/11 Truth: the type of thinking required to overcome various pitfalls which lead to the promotion of false theories demands serious practice and mastery of skeptical philosophy, the scientific method, the journalistic method, historiography, logic, the whole nine yards.

Kevin Ryan has all of this, so I can't explain why this discussion is happening, other than that the motivation must be political and/or ideological. In other words: emotional investment and belief perseverance. A desire not to insult friends in the movement by deviating from established Truth Movement doctrine, combined with discontent towards the government's hostility, criminality and non-transparency, which came at a personal cost for Kevin (and Steven Jones, too), leading to a total rejection of the core tenet that 9/11 hijackers were involved, and an embrace of the concept of exclusive government culpability. That's the best I can come up with. But I'm not going to clatter nonsensical falsehoods and sprinkle around insinuendo about "cognitive infiltration". That's weak sauce, using Cass Sunstein to jab your detractors on this issue below the belt. I could do the same thing but I won't, because I don't believe everybody who disagrees with me must be a 'Sunstein Infiltrator'.

But... some people can't help themselves, know this is annoying, so they go down that provocational route. Piss off those assholes, they think.

This is called "needling".

It's the online equivalent of a whoopee cushion.

Semantics

SC: "Since I know a "Sunstein Infiltrator" is a product of DRG-fans' imagination, because pysops are conducted under the direction of the Pentagon, the CIA and/or the NSA and not under the supervision of Cass Sunstein (AFAIK), I find the constant referral to these fictional bogeymen immature and annoying."

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I find this hysteria over two people talking to a Muslim audience immature and annoying.

Clearly

That is not what this discussion is about, but you are race baiting like Kevin Ryan.

In terms of debate tactics, that is fucking despicable.

Farrakhan is the racist here, not us.

Yeah

Have you followed any links or are you just opening your mouth without thinking?

The racist is Farrakhan, and you are defending him with your ignorance.

Is this guy your buddy like he is Kevin's?

Racism is ugly

... and Farrakhan is not my buddy. Never met him, have no particular desire to.

My entrance into this discussion is to remark on a certain hysteria I note has broken out with regard to two people addressing a Muslim audience.

I hear white Americans calling Muslims 'towelheads'. and I witness them frothing at the mouth over Muslims. That comes across as racist to a lot of non-Americans. When I notice people making anti-semitic remarks against Jewish people that comes across as racist and ugly too.

I am against racism and lies. I'm also against hyperbole and hysteria.

I believe in dialogue - even with officially designated enemies.

Racist whites who talked about "the black devil" sat down to talk with the man described as "despicable" by whites and "a terrorist" (Mandela) by Dick Cheney.

If there'd been frothing hysteria over the white man and the black terrorist being in the same room, [GASP !!! SHOCK AND HORROR!!! ] apartheid would still be alive and kicking in that country today.

Quakers perhaps?

Simple Truths said..."I believe in dialogue - even with officially designated enemies."

What is the point of dialogue if it is not accurate or honest?

"Muslims did not attack the United States on 9-11" - K Ryan

"The men accused of being the 9-11 hijackers were not Muslims" - K Ryan

This is not "dialogue". It is pandering to an audience, for fund raising, and attention. It is BS.

What was Ramzi Yousef and his partner Abdul Murad? You know the ones who came up with this plan of flying planes into buildings 6 years before 9-11?

"Before sentencing, Yousef made a rambling, 17 minute statement in which he said, Yes, I am a terrorist and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government."
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-01-08/us/9801_08_yousef.update_1_yousef-trade-center-bombing-airliner-bombing?_s=PM:US

His uncle was KSM. I suppose they were, along with the hijackers K Ryan doesn't want to talk about... Quakers right?

Richard and Kevin

Simple Truths, you state:

I hear white Americans calling Muslims 'towelheads'. and I witness them frothing at the mouth over Muslims

And had Richard or Kevin been engaged to speak at anyone's venues who speaks of "towel-heads," or satanic towel-heads for emphasis, I would put up a big stink. It looks like you might have too.

So why the difference for Farrakhan?

With Friends Like This, Who Needs Sunsteins?

This thread is a shining example of why there no longer needs to be infiltrators in the 9/11 Truth Movement ... we got it covered for free! All the effective trolls went over to disrupt Occupy, and the ones we have left here are the COINTELPRO C Team. Why? Because we can't even have a sane discourse on why a presentation of 9/11 Truth to the Nation of Islam is a really bad idea ... that's why.

I have great respect for both Kevin and Richard and their tireless work, and have supported them both through our websites probably more than any 2 people in the movement ... WAY more than David Ray Griffin, for example, who appears to do a lot of writing, but IMO isn't working very hard. But the thing about all of these 9/11 Researchers is that, while they may be stellar (or not) at stitching together a narrative based on facts and empirical evidence, many of them fail miserably in the department of public relations. Kevin is usually the best on PR as he is well-versed on the psychological attack of the attack. Richard, whom I call a personal friend of mine BTW, is historically terrible at judging how others perceive his work (and/or his relationship to trolls in the movement) in a PR context. And DRG ... also quite bad. I'll also add that I've seen each of these men get unreasonably defensive and emotional about being criticized for having bad judgement along these lines.

I've worked in art/media/advertising/PR/journalism for 25 years, and you know what? I had to learn me a little "nanothermite", which honestly was not easy for me to do. If I had a brain that was wired for science, I would have been a scientist, not an art director. But I did it. Why the researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement can't learn the basics of public relations and PR 101 do's and don'ts is beyond me. (It's not like it is very heavy reading.) Facts, research and education are very important, no doubt. But the CONTROL is managed through propaganda, framing, disinformation, false association and the manipulation of emotions, tribal urges and belief systems ... NOT FACTS, sorry. Eddie Bernays taught us that in 1929, and it is in hyper-drive today. I think it is irresponsible for our researchers to exercise such a low-grade understanding of how this works, especially since there is not shortage of scientific writings on the subject.

Every other time I've brought this up in a public forum, I get attacked and called a shill. (This pretty much confirms to me what I just put forth about facts don't matter.) The bottom line is you would be hard-pressed to find a more unpopular group than the Nation of Islam. Perhaps if our movement was stronger through the lens of public appeal, I might think speaking to this group wasn't such a bad idea. But we aren't that strong, and to pretend we are is dangerous. I urge you scientists you take up a little PR reading and maybe you won't be so shocked and appalled by the people on this thread who are disagreeing with you. Many of us can see why this decision is mind-numbingly short-sighted, to say the least.

I'm afraid

You are giving these "experts" to much cred. I can't excuse away this type of behavior as mere ignorance of PR. Their unwillingness to respond to basic questions, as well as adjust their positions when confronted with tangible facts is more than just ignorance. I don't think DRG, Gage or Ryan are that ignorant, nor stupid. You don't think these guys know about Bernays and PR? I give them more cred. than that. I don't know WHY their are behaving so differently than what would be productive to getting the TRUTH out. All I know is that when anyone speaks at events like these, or ignore facts, or state theories as facts, or state versions of pieces of facts but make errors in those statements, they allow those who committed the crimes of 9/11 to sleep easier at night.

Show "Who?" by 911ARTISTS

Downvoters,

you have hidden my statement above anonymously and without any explanation whatsoever. Your action diminishes all making an effort to participate here. I ask you to re-examine what your doing.

911blogger.com staff, I ask you to reconsider your policy on the this.

Don't worry about it

While I agree that there is a certain "cultist" aspect in regards to some of DRG's followers, there are a lot of ae911truth supporters on this board. If you basically tell them they are part of a cult, what do you think the results are going to be?
I didn't down vote you, but you shouldn't be to surprised at the results. I always use to get down voted when I had the audacity to say a passenger jet hit the pentagon. I wouldn't concern myself with things not in your control (like the voting)but rather things that are in your control (like what information you put out). Then let time-truth-and reality play itself out.

re: Don't worry about it

jimd3100 - "If you basically tell them they are part of a cult, what do you think the results are going to be?"

I expect the light, sir. But I prepare for the darkness as well seeing that it often comes.

Downvoters, I state again

that you are hiding my work anonymously and without any explanation whatsoever. I ask you to explain to me and everyone what you believe you're doing here.

911blogger.com staff, how much of this do you have to see?

Show "Downvoters, I state again" by 911ARTISTS

Thanks

for an even-handed analysis.

Thanks for your input

Many of us can see why this decision is mind-numbingly short-sighted, to say the least.

To say the least.

Show "my popular clip" by Douglas Hilton

credibility

"Since 2006, Ryan has been the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and has been a founding member of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice", the "9/11 Working Group of Bloomington", and "Scientists for 9/11 Truth". He has also served as a board director at "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."
http://digwithin.net/about/

Perhaps we can convince Farrakhan to join "the Journal of 9/11 Studies" and "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice" and the "9/11 Working Group of Bloomington" along with "Scientists for 9/11 Truth" and "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" in a leadership role in order to bolster their "credibility". Sound like a good idea?

In the meantime I'm working on getting him to be a board member of a group I'm putting together called "Anti-American Conspiracy theorists who went to college and argue from authority" I hope DRG or Kevin Barrett have the time to be President of my new group if Farrakhan isn't able to.

Jimd3100Stein CON
Proud member of Total MIHOP Warriors Alliance

Mr. Hilton

Please finish the equation below so I know your opinion:

9/11 information + satanic jew diatribes =

nct i believe

You seriously and earnestly mean to spread the truth the best and most credible way possible. i appreciate your input but unfortunately the minister moved me to tears when i first saw clips of him talking about the fake external threat and the internal system.

Emotions.

Appealing to emotion is one way to reach reasonable people with an unreasonable message.

It works well, and Farrakhan is an obvious master of pleasing the crowd.

We all know the system is screwed up, that doesn't mean we need to inflame the hate-industrial-complex.

Douglas look at who you are supporting here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfZYqCOih8

This is out of control. I don't believe you actually want to spread this extremist's horrid views.

A few more comments while I have time

Yes, I have read Kevin Fenton's book. Have you read his paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies?

Fenton's book provides a wealth of good information and yet another way to see why Muslims were not responsible for 9/11.

We know that the alleged hijackers were not Muslims (any more than my attackers here are truth seekers). But we also know that Tom WIlshire was not a Muslim. Similarly, it is evident that "Michelle," "James," Dina Corsi, etc. and Richard Blee were not Muslims.

We already knew that Michael Rolince and Marion Bowman were not Muslims, and neither were the other leaders of the FBI or the CIA (Although maybe they were video fakery Muslims. You'd have to ask someone in the truth gestapo about that).

In any case, I'll write it up.

Thanks, but what about:

Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar?

Omar Al Bayoumi?

How can you simply ignore their relevence?

As if the book doesn't mention them or something?

Look, Wilshire and the lot are guilty as charged, but I'm just willing to acknowlede all the facts on the table. I wish we would all be more objective in our pursuit of the truth.

Your exact message can still be told with the fact of Mihdhar and alHazmi being real people.

Nonetheless, I am glad that you took the time to respond and in such I will thank you.

I will also ask that you not be so paranoid about your attackers.

Heated debate should not be confused with infiltration, nor should it lead to paranoia.

Easy, Brian

You don’t appear to have heard your own pep talk on emotional responses. Let’s review your record in this discussion.

  • You assumed I brought up the 9/11 family members in order to silence my critics and you were wrong. In fact, it was only you who did that and then had to (weakly) apologize.
  • You assumed I did not contact any 9/11 family members and you were wrong.
  • You assumed I did not read Fenton's book, even though I probably read it before you did because I got a copy prior to publication
  • .
    And now you assume that I think Al Mihdhar and Al Hamzi were not real people despite the fact that you have absolutely nothing on which to base that assumption.

    Your record with these reflexive, hot-button assumptions is not good. You might try not making any more until I post the write-up.

    A B.S. Cop out in the works?

    Kevin Ryan said.."And now you assume that I think Al Mihdhar and Al Hamzi were not real people despite the fact that you have absolutely nothing on which to base that assumption"

    He does have something to base that assumption. It's on the video. "The men accused of being the 9-11 hijackers were not Muslims" - K Ryan

    Kevin Ryan said...."You might try not making any more until I post the write-up."

    If you plan on making your conclusion in your write up as "Since REAL Muslims don't murder people then any alleged hijackers couldn't be Muslims" This post will be here to remind you that there is a term called "Radical Islamic Muslims"
    Al Mihdhar and Al Hamzi would fall into this category along with Bin Laden.

    I am emotional, true.

    But I am not trying to appeal to your or others emotions.... I stopped that well before quitting AE.

    You see, I thought I was surrounded by intelligent, independent, reasonable people in the organization.

    After pointing out how incredibly shady Farrakhan is, you and Richard, along with a host of people at AE, were blinded by the thought of such a large audience, a muslim audience, commendable to be sure, but not worth it, obviously!

    There are millions of Muslims, only a very tiny fraction follow Farrakhan and NOI anyway.

    I gave 2.5 years of my life to AE and in the end, I know more about the group than I ever wanted to: It is a very disappointing situation in more ways than one. Leaving made me angry for various reasons.However staying would have made me more angry.

    So, yeah I am emotional. But I have been fighting a majority on this at AE, before I left, it's tough to be the lone dissenter in the group. I'm sure you remember that feeling?

    I asked if you had read Fenton's book, I did not assume, though I am so glad you have!

    I absolutely assumed you did not ask family members, and I am damn curious as to which ones you did, and what they said. But again, I am glad you took the step.

    As to the first point, I can send you some flowers with the apology, but the point remained the same.

    You were evading questions and criticism by using the "victims." I read "victims families" and apologized for the error. However I was making a point and no matter the words you didn't use, my point remains.

    If my apology was too weak, well, I think I have started the process of shaking hands well enough, not to say the process has stopped.

    But, I don't understand the angle you have been taking in this debate.

    You should know you made a very controversial (let alone not completely honest) statement in a very controversial event and it carries risks.

    Admit that little, and I will send flowers with my next apology ;)

    If you have evidence that someone here is some sort of infilitrator or truth gestapo, lay it out, otherwise please stop being so paranoid about the criticism.

    I look forward to your review of Fenton's book, which indeed you read before me with an advance copy.

    Busy

    He's probably to busy with his FTIR and TEM tests, which of course when they are finally released will show nanothermite was used to bring down the WTC therefor proving that "Muslims had nothing to do with 9-11".

    "Recent developments among supporters of the US government's version of events indicate that they plan to begin blaming Saudi Arabia for the attacks of September 11, 2001" - K Ryan
    http://www.911workinggroup.org/2011/08/playing-get-into-saudi-arabia-free-card.html

    "Those redacted pages, and much of the 9/11 Commission report that followed, have always seemed to be a kind of "Get into Saudi Arabia free" card for the powers that be." - K Ryan
    http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/08/playing-get-into-saudi-arabia-free-card.html

    No one is more interested in protecting Muslims than Mr Ryan.

    Except for perhaps Mr Bush

    Kevin's meltdown

    "We know that the alleged hijackers were not Muslims "

    Actually Kevin, we don't. Only extremely delusional, hard-headed denialists who have problems with intellectual honesty and integrity think this.

    "(any more than my attackers here are truth seekers)"

    (...)

    "(Although maybe they were video fakery Muslims. You'd have to ask someone in the truth gestapo about that)."

    As a card carrying member of "Zee Truth Gestapo", I would like to know: when are you going to apologize to the people you conned for publishing a fraudulent paper together with Steven Jones?

    ETA:

    George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, those guys from Blackwater: fundamentalist Christians. Or are we likewise going to say that the "alleged" Bush administration were not Christians?

    What about the "alleged" Zionists? Not really Zionist?

    These martyr videos:

    9/11 martyr video of Walid al-Shehri
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S53SxdGMtHk#t=4m38s

    9/11 martyr video of Abdulaziz al-Omari
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHsSvrcvACs

    9/11 martyr video of Saeed al-Ghamdi
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr_sRV6-vAM

    9/11 martyr video of Ahmed al-Ghamdi
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fr3rA_KKyk

    Packed with references to the Qur'an.

    No more burying of heads in the sand. This is absurd.

    Pathetic indeed

    SnowCrash said..."These martyr videos:"

    Those videos are fake! They have to be!! oh...wait.....You almost got me! You tried to recruit me into your video fakery and anti research fake truther group I've been warned about.

    Aidan Monaghan said...."Because this group seems highly motivated to cause division and animosity within discussion threads through the use of foul language, taunting and conflicted points of view, one would be wise to avoid involved interaction."

    That's because they are against research and promote video fakery. They HAVE to be or K Ryan is a liar.

    Kevin Ryan said....."Now he is the leader of the anti-research attack group."

    Yes, Mr Hill is their leader!! It's a conspiracy!!!!! And they are a group consisting of people who are against research!!!!

    Kevin Ryan said....."Pathetic."

    Pathetic indeed. "Anti researchers" and "video fakery" advocates are everywhere!!!

    No Muslims were involved in the Fly Under at the pentagon on 9/12! Those anti researching video fakery advocates are even against my Fly Under on 9-12 research (which destroys the official story and is a huge smoking gun proving my credentials as a real truther!)

    Jimd3100Stein CON
    Proud member of the "Total MIHOP Warriors Alliance" and "Real Truther"

    Truth seeker

    Kevin Ryan said....."We know that the alleged hijackers were not Muslims (any more than my attackers here are truth seekers)."

    Since I am indeed a truth seeker, who is described by you as "an attacker", this is an admission (albeit in a very cowardly way) that you lied when you were pandering to the NOI.

    Kevin Ryan said..."In any case, I'll write it up."

    Oh good. Be sure to mention how no Muslims were involved in order to keep your dishonest Charade going along with your "credentials as a "9-11 conspiracy" leader.

    Some of us are aware that priests(who rape young boys) who are part of a Catholic congregation describe themselves as Christians (not Buddists) just as Islamic radicals describe themselves as Muslim.

    They exist get used to it. Those Radical Islamic Muslims were called freedom fighters when they were used to fight the USSR. Killing for God (or Allah) is not new. Religious whackos are not new.

    I'm fed up

    with being called a Sunstein infiltrator, a deceiver (the opposite of a truth seeker), mafia, gestapo and every other smear in the politically correct, religious zealot mollycoddling repertoire.

    Mr. Ryan and Mr. Gage are accountable for their words, deeds and actions just like anybody else.

    When I browse History Commons, I don't see a body of evidence pointing to kamikaze double agents pretending to be religious. I see two guilty actors (Al Qaeda and the US government) and exculpating either one of them for the sake of donations or political expediency is intolerable and inexcusable.

    Back when I was a true believer in the nanothermite paper, I went to great lengths to defend it. Now I feel scammed. Additional research was promised but never published. Peer review (David Griscom) turned out to be deliberately deceptive, one of the authors revealed himself to be a sucker for pseudoscience and now another co-author can't understand why fraternizing with a racist, chemtrails/UFO promoting cult leader implicated in murder is a problem, and instead vilifies and snitchjackets whoever dares say something about it, while studiously badmouthing and crucifying research which so much as tangentially admits and explores the mere existence of 9/11 hijackers with a fundamentalist background.

    Oh hell no. I'm not going to take this lying down. And neither should the rest of the well-meaning independently thinking gentlemen who were unjustly targeted in this thread.

    SnowCrash, I am astonished

    I have always admired your determination to use empirical evidence to establish your position. Now you attack the Active Thermitic Materials paper and one would assume that you do so on the basis of empirical evidence. But no - there is no analysis of the findings in the paper. There is just ad hominem attacks and complaint about the failure to produce follow-up papers on additional research.

    Regarding additional research, I managed to get a favourable response from the University of Western Australia, said to have the best equipment in the southern hemisphere, and have been calling for samples of the dust ever since. Nobody has come up with any. It is not easy. Have you been calling for dust? If not, why not?

    I suggest you carefully consider the findings set out in the paper regarding the use of the Differencial Scanning Calorimeter (DSC). It requires very little chemical background to understand. Red chip material was put into it, and heated to 700 degrees. Afterwards it was found that globules of largely iron were present. This proves that a temperature higher than the melting point of iron, 1500 degrees, was achieved. That proves a thermitic reaction occurred.

    For you to say you doubt the paper, is to say you doubt the scientists involved and suspect them of deliberately creating a deception. I am not impressed. I await you explanation.

    Frank

    Response here

    Popped into Truth Action Forum ...

    ... and I see the same hubbub we witness on this thread ensues over there.

    The same freak-out over bringing facts to some black folk of another religion.

    The calm voice of reason belongs to one 'truebeleaguer'.

    I now start to think that racism underlies this hysteria.

    Take this random comments from the T.A site, from someone who also posts here:..

    "Actually, he's [Gage] going to cater his and Ryan's no hijacker theory to a racist, anti-semitic organization of kooks,
    and he knows that theory will be welcomed"

    Is each and every member of that NOI audience (centred on Islamic issues) 'a racist and an anti-semite'?. Proof please?

    Must I assume each and every person seated in an AIPAC conference (centred on Jewish issues) is a racist and an anti-Islamic anti-semite? Proof please?

    By the way - to parse the phrase "anti-semite:"

    Semite - DICTIONARY MEANING

    Se·mit·ic
    .
    1. Of or relating to the Semites or their languages or cultures.

    2. Of, relating to, a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramai and such ancient languages as Akkadian and Phoenician

    ( Peoples) denoting, belonging to, or characteristic of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, especially the Jews and Arabs.

    Anti-semite - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
    - against Semitic people

    Re:

    "Is each and every member of that NOI audience (centred on Islamic issues) 'a racist and an anti-semite'?. Proof please?"

    No, but they revere a leader who was involved in the murder of Malcolm X, later claimed that murder was nobody's business but the Nation of Islam's, because they will decide how to deal with 'traitors', who believes in chemtrails, claims to be abducted by a UFO, claims he was taught by the Mahdi (i.e. like the second coming of Jesus, but Muslim) himself, in the form of Elijah Muhammad, hates Jews and Whites, and habitually refers to the "Synagogue of Satan".

    I can't prove each and every single member of NOI is a racist kook, but if this is the leader you follow you are surely an idiot.

    NOI isn't even real Islam, and Muslims agree.

    It's a cult using Islam as a device. Farrakhan is the cult leader. Did you watch his speech in its entirety? Did you see what he did to his own cadre during his speech? I watched so many hours of that crap I lost track of time. It felt like it lasted four hours at least.

    I know why it took so long... that is brainwashing, pummeling hapless believers with salvo after salvo of indoctrination and smothering dissent before it even starts. I know brainwashing when I see it. Ryan wasn't there but Gage was in the crowd and was congratulated by Farrakhan for his courage half-way in. Farrakhan then claims Gage and Ryan UNEQUIVOCALLY stated Muslims did not do 9/11.

    Kevin Ryan now claims he meant to say a true Muslim wouldn't do 9/11, but that is not how the audience understood it, and these snapshots from Twitter prove it.

    Gage and Ryan are not Farrakhan, but they irreparably damaged AE911Truth's reputation by attending, cementing the association between the two for citation in the media, the very domain in which AE911Truth seeks to gain a decisive advantage.

    One has a responsibility for the sort of organizations one joins as a member. Are all KKK members racist? Perhaps not, but we look at the leadership, the history of the organization and get a general idea what the organization is about.

    Some aspects of Farrakhan's personality I found to be enamoring and endearing. He is charismatic, self-confident, and a great orator, like many successful cult leaders (and politicians). Some of the things he said are true. The segment about the rhetoric towards Obama was mostly accurate and infuriating. Obama ought to be criticized for his policies and not for his skin tone. But I can't take part of his message and ignore the rest.

    As for anti-semitism and its origins:

    "While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[2] and that has been its normal use since then.[3]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitic
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem

    It will have to do meaning what it is commonly understood to mean. I'll be happy to replace the term with "Jew hatred" if you so desire. Would that clear up your misunderstanding?

    exactly

    Simple Truth's is supporting a notorious Jew Hater in supporting Farrakhan. And, in a post above apparently accused me of being anti-semitic. I know he is unaware that I was raised in a conservative jewish family.

    Where is the line drawn with peoples defenses of speaking at Jew Hater filled events? What about it Simple Truth's, would it be ok to you if Kevin were speaking at a KKK rally, or endorsing David Duke?

    Groundless assumptions

    'The same freak-out over bringing facts to some black folk of another religion.'

    'I now start to think that racism underlies this hysteria.'

    You mean you're actually assuming that the race and religion of the attendees is the explanation for why some people here are saying that this might not have been the best venue for an A&E presentation?

    You just assume (certainly implied by the above-quoted statements) that these same people would object to giving such a presentation to any and every Muslim or black organization?

    'Proof please?'

    Are you thinking that Farrakhan is a controversial figure only to those with critical comments about this A&E event?

    This is not the first time that association with Farrakhan has been a concern on this blog, and the critical comments have not been restricted to those that have posted here in recent days. For example, just have a look at this, from the fall of 2009, prompted by Douglas Hilton's posting of the same Farrakhan video to several news items in succession:

    http://911blogger.com/news/2009-10-13/one-giant-stepvers-la-v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9#comment-219426

    "You just assume (certainly

    "You just assume (certainly implied by the above-quoted statements) that these same people would object to giving such a presentation to any and every Muslim or black organization?"

    This perfectly states the bunk logic behind the attacks and snitch-jacketing throughout this thread. Also good find on Douglas Hilton's repeated postings of FarraCON videos. Douglas please read my post to you above and respond. What's up with this? If David Duke or a KKK leader denounced the wars in Iraq and Iran would you put up videos of them?

    Useful Suggestions for Success

    Still relevant and still useful...

    TruthMove.org: 2008 Declaration Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth

    Pubished January, 2007.

    Truthaction.org:+Mission+Statement+and+Guiding+Principles

    Published March, 2008.

    It's not to late to support/promote/adhere to the offered suggestions for constructive outreach and promotion of this issue.

    Excerpts

    6) Do not allow the proliferation of irresponsible information or damaging behavior simply because the individuals or groups in question maintain a certain reputation or notoriety within the movement. The fact that someone may “have done good work in the past” is never a valid excuse to tolerate damaging participation in the present. The movement must be about truth and justice rather than character and popularity.

    Some associations that are damaging and marginalizing to the movement are listed below. It is a historical fact that the mere mention of these topics has been seen to cause us long term damage. Consequently it is considered by TruthAction.org that only a clear focus on 9/11 fact based evidence will achieve our goals.

    1. UFO and alien theories
    2. Holocaust revisionism
    3. Religion based conspiracy theories
    4. Moon landing hoax

    (Farrakhan just hit the trifecta at minimum)

    Great job Kevin

    I'm surprised that many of our fellow 9/11 truth activists are finding fault with this presentation, regardless of the venue. I hope their negativity or critique does not hinder your actions which are indeed admirable.

    Shameful behavior on this thread, + questions for Kevin

    Obviously, there's been no moderation of this thread, and I'm not going to do it now. My acting as a mod would appear biased anyway, considering that on past threads I've been smeared and snitchjacketed by people who've smeared and snitchjacketed the critics in this thread. As far as I'm concerned, it will be useful for the many rules-violating/infracting comments to stay up, for the record. In the future, they may be linked to, as a testimony against certain commenters. I'm also not going to advocate that any violators in this thread be banned or moderated for their behavior in this thread, but Kevin, some of his supporters and some of the critics have given cause for moderation/banning: Accusations of lying/being a disruptor, insults, ad hominem attacks/commentary, basic incivility and off-topic comments. An aside: It is quite ironic that some commenters snitchjacket critical commenters, as snitchjacketing is a known COINTELPRO tactic: Church Report 8 PDF I don't know if they are what they're accusing others of being, but I do know they undermine their own cred when they make accusations/insinuations that critics are disruptors, rather than point out where they're in error (if they are), or show how their behavior violates the rules.

    Other observations: Any internet activist whose goal is to persuade people (rather than argue, push buttons and score points; troll) would do well to realize that most 'debate opponents' here don't give a shit about your opinion and won't be persuaded by your facts. The people to reach are those who are objective, rational and amenable to persuasion by fact-based, logical argument. Some of these people may be commenters, or they may be lurkers, or they may be random curious observers, but they far outnumber your debate opponents. These people are going to be turned off by the highly charged emotions raging here on all sides.

    Regarding the OP: Kevin, were you aware prior to speaking at this event that NOI is estimated to have only 20-50K core adherents, and many of its beliefs, such as Black supremacy/separatism, are rejected by most Blacks and Muslims in the US and around the world? Do you consider Farrakhan's comments in the vids posted in this thread offensive, or do you see why a majority of people consider things he's said to be ignorant, bigoted, nutty and offensive? Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam_and_antisemitism How is it a net positive to speak to a group whose views represent a very small percentage of people, when this group's views are offensive to the great majority? If you're going to speak at NOI, why not speak at Fetzer and Blakeney's upcoming Vancouver conference?

    The outline of your NOI address, for the most part, represents areas of legitimate concern re: 9/11, though, as I haven't listened to it, I don't know what your evidence/arguments were. However, two of your claims seem dubious, based on the outline and your opening remark, and these are the two main things the critics here have focused on: 1) Your blanket statement that the US was not attacked by Muslims on 9/11, and 2) Your claim that alleged hijackers were found alive afterward.

    You've read Kevin Fenton's book, but it appears, from the outline and this thread, that you did not address the evidence of 9/11 complicity on the part of the CIA and FBI personnel who were actively shielding known terrorist operatives, in particular Almihdhar and Alhazmi, from discovery/arrest, and who allowed them to enter and operate in the US. Fenton's documentation shows the NSA/CIA probably were monitoring at least some of their calls, and it is likely they were under unofficial physical surveillance. Some of the named alleged hijackers took flight training, they all had tickets for the 9/11 flights, flight manifests and UA 93 boarding passes indicate they boarded the planes, phone calls from passengers on all the flights reported middle-eastern-looking hijackers who had killed/injured passengers/crew, threatened to blow the planes up and got into the cockpits. DNA of alleged hijackers was reportedly discovered at the UA93 and Pentagon crash sties. Of course, questions remain about the integrity of some of this evidence, but there's no credible evidence any of it is fraudulent, despite claims it was faked/can't be trusted.

    I agree with you that the named alleged hijackers could not have caused the total destruction of the WTC, caused the still-unexplained FAA/NMCC/NORAD failures, and couldn't have caused the CIA or FBI to protect them. But, how can you say they did not 'attack' the US? Their plot appears to have been hijacked, but it also appears these Islamic radicals/patsies, some of whom may have been double agents who may not have understood how they were being used, did intend and attempted to attack the US, even if the planes were in turn hijacked by remote control (something that may be true, but for which there's no hard evidence).

    Also, the reports of 'alive hijackers' were mostly cases of mistaken identity, though some may have been cases of stolen identity and may still not be resolved. However, anyone wanting to make accurate claims about this would do well to examine 911Myths' research, to see if he's gotten it right or wrong: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive It makes little sense that patsy hijackers would be left alive after the plot, or that the story would be left open to being so easily undermined by documentation that people officially alleged to have hijacked and died on the planes were still alive afterward.

    Erik

    I agree that it is probably not fair for you to interject, considering you are supposed to be a moderator here.

    But since you did, I'll try to clarify for you. You wrote that all the trouble seems to be caused by "1) [My] blanket statement that the US was not attacked by Muslims on 9/11, and 2) [My] claim that alleged hijackers were found alive afterward."

    As I said above, I'm writing up the details on #1. Those who committed murder on 9/11 did not follow the teachings of any religion.

    But #2 is clearly a false statement on your part. In my presentation, which covered an enormous amount of unanswered questions, I said exactly this: "What I mean is that half of them were reported to still be alive after 9/11. These claims were reported by major media sources like the London Telegraph and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although BBC attempted to retract the claims later, the Telegraph reported that it had interviewed some of these men, who the newspaper said had the same names, same dates of birth, same places of birth, and same occupations as the accused.
    What is most important to remember is that these reports were not investigated by the FBI or by the 9/11 Commission. They were simply ignored."

    I did not claim that the alleged hijackers were found alive, I claimed (rightly) that it was reported that the hijackers were found alive. It is very interesting that the many claims about the accused men still being alive were never investigated. And the few hand waving articles that have been offered in response, like the very weak Der Spiegel article that uses "US Historian Daniel Pipes" as the authority, do not resolve the issue.

    Maybe I'll write something more detailed on that subject but, for now, let's all try to stay focused and not jump to any more conclusions.

    pathetically predictable

    Kevin Ryan said..."As I said above, I'm writing up the details on #1. Those who committed murder on 9/11 did not follow the teachings of any religion."

    Yes, they were RADICAL ATHEISTS weren't they? Did they do it because they HATE FREEDOM TO? Did they have a "spiritual adviser" here in America? Did they attend any Mosques? It was a cover to hide their ATHEISTS beliefs right?

    How pathetically predictable......

    http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-29/kevin-ryan-presentation-nation-islam-911-what-really-happened-and-why#comment-255766

    [jimd3100 - Mod edit]

    [Mod warning: don't post a person's real name if they haven't personally disclosed it. Doing so is an intimidation tactic. It's also grounds for banning]

    Thank you for your response.

    You have successfully participated in science today. The hypothesis in this case was that you would engage in another raging, hateful diatribe solely based on your emotional interpretation of your opponent, without regard for the content of the message.

    You responded very predictably, saying that anyone who claims that "Those who committed murder on 9/11 did not follow the teachings of any religion" is "pathetically predictable" and in so many words, completely foolish.

    Do you know who said this? How about this one?

    [The crimes of 9/11 were done by] "Men who are murdering bastard criminals who are FAR from 'religious.'"

    In any case, thanks for participating in my experiment.

    Your experiments

    "Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي‎ ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) is a form of religious terrorism[1] committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

    "A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى‎; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى‎) in the Islamic faith is a juristic ruling concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81

    1998 fatwā:
    "The signatories as a group were identified as the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders". This fatwā complains of American military presence in the Arabian Peninsula, and American support for Israel. It purports to provide religious authorization for indiscriminate killing of Americans and Jews everywhere. It appeared in February 1998 and the embassy bombings followed in August."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden

    "While in San Diego, witnesses told the FBI he and Hazmi had a close relationship with Anwar Al Awlaki, an imam who served as their spiritual advisor.[25] Authorities say the two regularly attended the Masjid Ar-Ribat al-Islami mosque Awlaki led in San Diego, and Awlaki had many closed-door meetings with them, which led investigators to believe Awlaki knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Mihdhar#Background

    Kevin Ryan said..."In any case, thanks for participating in my experiment."

    Shouldn't you be working on releasing some TEM and FTIR experiments instead of showing your ignorance on political theology?

    And a note to the mods: Never have I gave permission for anyone on this site to reveal my name. I expect an action on this CIT type behavior

    Nice. The moderator finally jumps in...

    ... to defend someone who wants to remain anonymous in his attacks. And this was after the moderator sent me a personal email asking me to come here and post more comments!

    Who is intimidated by their own name, anyway? This attacker has been identified so many times on 911blogger that he is a mystery only unto himself.

    http://www.911blogger.com/news/2011-05-16/death-osama-911-and-war-terror

    I guess it's not an "intimidation tactic" when some people use his name.

    "Name a religion that condones brutally murdering 2,973 people."

    The anti research attacker

    Kevin Ryan said...."This attacker has been identified so many times on 911blogger that he is a mystery only unto himself."

    I have never used my name nor given permission for anyone to reveal it. That was the only time it was revealed and you post a link to it again to keep it going. I never gave permission then either. You post it in bold as the subject,, during a discussion then claim it's "been identified many times" which is a lie of course. You are not kidding anyone.

    Killing for Religion

    Kevin Ryan said......"Name a religion that condones brutally murdering 2,973 people."

    "The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#Politics_and_culture

    "The biblical King David of Israel was known for his diverse skills as both a warrior and a writer of psalms."
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/David.html

    "Also how many men did King David kill?"

    "Was it 700 as per II Samuel 10:18 “And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.” (KJV)"

    "Or was it 7,000 as per I Chronicles 19:18 “But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.” (KJV)"

    "Again, there are no contradictions in the Bible. In II Samuel 10:18, the Bible tells us the number of men King David slew of 700 chariots. If Solomon had 10 men per chariot, then the number of men David slew was 7,000 which is confirmed in 1 Chronicles 19:18."
    http://www.creationscience.co.uk/bible-contradictions-how-many-men-did-king-david-kill/

    "By 634, Islam had taken over the entire Arabian peninsula. Within 100 years of Muhammad's death, it had reached the Atlantic in one direction and borders of China in the other. This success was due in large part to the military and political abilities of Muhammad's successors, the caliphs."
    http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/history/prophet.htm

    Kevin Ryan said......"Name a religion that condones brutally murdering 2,973 people."

    A lot more than 3000 people have been killed in the name of God/Allah/Yahweh

    A World Wide Religious War would not be new. There are people who want this war on all sides. Emotional religion based propaganda is not new.

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

    Kevin, cont.

    I didn't say it wasn't "fair" for me to interject, and I don't think it's unfair. However, if I acted as a moderator, even if I was fair, certain parties might claim there is an appearance of conflict of interest, and that would be true enough.

    Kevin: "You wrote that all the trouble seems to be caused by "1) [My] blanket statement that the US was not attacked by Muslims on 9/11, and 2) [My] claim that alleged hijackers were found alive afterward.""

    What I said was, "[re: your presentation] ... these are the two main things the critics here have focused on: ..." imo, the "trouble" on this thread has been caused by people reacting emotionally and responding to each other uncritically, instead of engaging in civil and rational dialogue and debate.

    I'll be interested to see your write up: "Those who committed murder on 9/11 did not follow the teachings of any religion."

    Regarding #2, at the bottom of the 911myths page I linked to, there are links to in-depth examinations of news reports and other evidence in the cases of 9 different people who were reported as having similar names and identifying details as alleged hijackers, and who were alive after 9/11. There was some initial confusion over names, details and even photos. Part of this was due to people mistakenly believing they were the ones named, part of it was due to press error, and part of it seems to have been due to confusion at the FBI in the initial stages of their investigation. If you write up a report debunking any one or all of the in-depth examinations at 911myths, I'll be interested to see that, too.

    You did not respond to my points about NOI and Farrakhan, or my questions concerning the value of presenting at an NOI event.

    correction

    Though the outline for Kevin's NOI presentation 3)a)ii)4)(PDF) says "Hijackers found alive," Kevin did not, as I wrote, "claim that alleged hijackers were found alive afterward."

    The relevant part of Kevin's presentation had a slide w/ screen shots of the BBC and Telegraph reports, titled "Hijackers still alive?" and subtitled "Neither the FBI nor the 9/11 Commission addressed these claims" In his reply, Kevin provided this transcript of his brief remarks on that part of the presentation:

    "What I mean is that half of them were reported to still be alive after 9/11. These claims were reported by major media sources like the London Telegraph and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although BBC attempted to retract the claims later, the Telegraph reported that it had interviewed some of these men, who the newspaper said had the same names, same dates of birth, same places of birth, and same occupations as the accused. What is most important to remember is that these reports were not investigated by the FBI or by the 9/11 Commission. They were simply ignored."

    Clearly, Kevin is suggesting the FBI's claims about hijacker identities may be in error, but he has not stated it's a fact that they are. He has also stated these claims of 'alive hijackers' are so significant they should have been publicly addressed by the FBI and 9/11 Cmssn, and suggested that their failure to do so may be significant. However, he has not provided evidence that the the FBI got it wrong. Rather, as the documentation here indicates is the case, the press reports were based on cases of mistaken identity, and confusion in the early part of the investigaton: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive

    I've been challenged to provide FBI investigative records showing how they identified suspects and ruled out those still alive w/ similar names and details. The pages at the 911myths link do link to press reports on the FBI's investigation, including of the alive claims, but I'm not interested enough in this issue to dig thru the FBI records here to see if they do include FBI investigative reports on this subject: http://911datasets.org/index.php/NARA_9-11_Commission_Records_-_Released_Jan_14_2009 My commenting on this 'alive hijackers' issue was due to my mistaken belief that Kevin had claimed hijackers were alive. I am not persuaded that this is a significant issue, as no hard evidence has been provided that the FBI got the identities wrong. If anyone wants to investigate this, fine. However, without hard evidence that the FBI got it wrong, I think it's counter-productive to publicly suggest there's anything there.

    Contrary to what is suggested by the outline, the "Hijackers still alive?" part of Kevin's presentation is a very small part of his presentation. As he said, it "covered an enormous amount of unanswered questions." While I don't think everything in it is compelling, the presentation does present a lot of significant evidence and curious facts, and raises some compelling questions. The presentation also covers Able Danger, foreknowledge and obstructed pre-9/11 FBI investigations, all of which indicate the existence of a plot by Islamic radicals. The fuss made in this thread over the 'alive hijackers' part is out of proportion to its place in the overall presentation.

    I would still be interested to hear Kevin's response to my questions/comments about NOI and the value of presenting there. And I'll be interested to read the expansion of his views on the 'Muslims did not attack the US' claim, which he said he's writing. On its face, I don't see how its useful to deny someone is an adherent of a particular religion when they claim they to believe it, even if I personally think their interpretation is twisted, and there is hypocrisy in their actions.

    Thank you for this entry. I

    Thank you for this entry. I hope, it has a calming influence to the "warriors"-section here.

    The whole point of asking the

    The whole point of asking the questions was to get some clarification about the impression I was left with after watching the presentation. Questions that were responed to by ridicule and never answered.

    Yes, he did touch upon some important points, but other parts were riddled with conspiracy theories and seeds of doubt concerning the hijackers, pentagon and Shanksville.

    I just can't think of any positive benefit to say some of the things he did.

    The stupidest thread

    Thanks for stepping in loose nuke. It was needed. But even you have not got it quite right as Kevin points out.

    Why do I call this the stupidest thread? It is because emotions run high and most of the participants attack other participants. The plain fact is that every person on this thread is an honest, concientious impassioned worker for 9/11 truth. Every person has made a valuable contribution. Why are people making lists and taking sides?

    I will just give one example. The essence of the case made by CIT is that the witnesses to plane impact cannot be trusted because they have not been interviewed - we just depend on media quotes - while CIT has done interviews. Shure has taken the trouble to perfom a number of interviews. This is hard and painful work. He has many results. Robert Leonard: "I saw it. There's just no question at all, that the plane went into the Pentagon wall."

    Regarding Kevin's statement that Moslems did not do 9/11, surely that is meant to be the opening challenge. It gets you thinking. The challenge is to say to Kevin "what do you mean by that?" He of course will explain.

    Why so many of you were so blinded by emotions that you didn't stop to figure this out is a mystery. It is true however that humans are complicated and mysterious. We have to learn to put up with that, slow down a little, respect one another, and work out how to get along with one another for the real task at hand.

    Frank

    Do you really think it's a good idea for 9/11 truth 'representatives' to speak at NOI rally's?

    What would you say if Kev Ry were booked to speak at a KKK rally?

    How bout' a scientology convention?

    Where do you draw the line?

    Frank,

    The challenge for me (well before most of you knew this was going to happen) was to prove to Richard that Farrakhan was a poor choice as an ally to break into the muslim community.

    The question about what Kevin meant is moot had he and Richard made a (what i think is) better choice by not going to the Farrakhahn following.

    Must I repeat the words, history and philosophy of Farrakhan again, for the 13th time so we all know what a slimeball he is?

    I do agree that this thread is stupid, however only for completely other reasons, like the fact that people still think Farrkhan is a cool guy or something. Then those people went further and accuse or mistake debate as infiltration.

    I have stepped away from this discussion because my head needed to cool down, and I knew it. I tried in a comment to "calm the rhetoric between us all."

    I would also add that only some people here have added valuable contributions to 9/11 truths. I will point out that at least one person here has 0 blog entries, yet tons of accusations and opinions on people who actually have valuably contributed.

    But there is always time to start, SimpleTruths.

    I like the idea of being friends, I consider you all my friends, but you better believe friends go through some shit together.

    However the need for objective truth will always trump the need for a friend, for me.

    Thank you, the voice of reason

    Thanks for the reserved and thoughtful commentary and research as always. I will be the first to admit I was emotional in some of my responses in this thread. I want to apologize to those who have called me names on this thread, whom I referred to as the "schmutz of the 9/11 truth movement" and "meshugena." I am wiling to stand corrected. If you have proof that I am an infiltrator or work for an agency, please let me know. I'm also willing to respond to your points specifically. Why is it that when I and others ask questions we are met with more fact-less accusations?

    It's just been dreadfully frustrating to see people embracing and defending FarraCON who speaks regularly about killing jewish people and all white people.

    I am confident however, that if people actually read through this thread, it will be quite obvious which people here are willing to be corrected. This is the heart of the issue. We all get emotional, but who will actually respond in substance. Who will defend their positions with facts? Who will call names and claim infiltrator with no evidence?

    The behavior I see where people manipulate comments and cherry pick pieces of sentences is also disturbing. I don't think anyone in this thread is dumb. So maybe folks just get upset and don't read the comments closely enough. A few examples:

    Leo Alpha Male--
    "You and Richard have for years inspired so many of us to continue and refine how we present the factual information to the public, and it seems this is the reason for baseless attacks by jeffrey 'shure' hill, 'nor cal truth', michael 'snowcrash' de boer, 'zombie bill hicks', 'jimd3100', and 'kdub'. Throw in john albanese, and hossein turner for good measure and you have a small alienated group who act exactly like those who David Ray Griffin wrote a fascinating book about in response to cass sunstein's infamous memo."

    He wrote this quote before any of us even commented on this thread! I've never heard of or seen the guy on a blog before. Where did this come from?

    Simple Truths--

    http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-02-29/kevin-ryan-presentation-nation-islam-911-what-really-happened-and-why#comment-25...

    His response cherry picked a part of my quote talking about the NOI group, yet he tried to make it appear as though it's how I feel. And of course, still hasn't responded. Is it because he figured out I was jewish?

    Aidan-

    When the afore mentioned allied clique is not peddling the Popular Mechanics version of 9/11 (Kdub, SC, Jimd, NCT, Shure, etc.) they can be found attacking the 9/11 skeptics community's most successful research and voices ... David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and now Kevin Ryan. Perhaps this is all one needs to know about them (besides their association to video fakery). The NOI presentation was a very positive breakthrough, which might explain the feigned opposition to it here.

    A little game where Aidan attempts to imply that there are people here who are deliberately against positive breakthroughs. I won't re-iterate how not positive of a move for 9/11 truth appearing at a racist rally is. And here he also manipulates words and bad info to try to claim that myself and others are somehow associated with video fakery. Yet no proof, no response.

    And finally, Kevin Ryan in his response to loose nukes comment:

    I agree that it is probably not fair for you to interject, considering you are supposed to be a moderator here. But since you did, I'll try to clarify for you.

    An odd manipulation and an incorrect analysis of loose nukes words. He clearly states that he is NOT intervening with moderation or removal of comments. Loose nukes comment about the issues and Kevin's research is NOT the 'intervening' Kevin suggested. Loose nuke is simply participating in the discussion. And then Kevin's response to Jim's comment below..

    You responded very predictably, saying that anyone who claims that "Those who committed murder on 9/11 did not follow the teachings of any religion" is "pathetically predictable" and in so many words, completely foolish.

    But this was obviously NOT what Jim was referring to as predictable. I know Ryan is intelligent, so maybe he just needs to re-read Jim's comments.

    One other thing I wanted to mention, was how amazing some of the behavior is here, where people some how think it's right to boldly decree blogger's full names. What is the point of this? It seems like a type of veiled threat. It's worth noting which bloggers these full real name attacks come from. I have always found it uncomfortable and creepy when people come on to 9/11 truth boards and beg for full names, call out full names, or ask for personal info instead of just responding to a basic question.

    I'm open and appreciative to any responses to this post, especially from those I mention here. Perhaps we will find a middle ground. Again, thank you loose nuke for the thoughtful, even handed perspective as always. Sorry I get excited sometimes.

    meshugena

    Could you explain this word to me please? I am not American and have never heard it before.

    Hot air versus blood and death

    Kdub: those who defend FarraCON who speaks regularly about killing jewish people and all white people."

    I am personally less worried about people who 'speak' than those who 'do'.

    Therefore, Obomber worries me more because he actually sends in deadly drones to kill semitic people.

    Farrakahn = hot air. Commander in Chief + Army = blood and death.

    Sorry but your rational doesn't work

    And still dodges the real issue here.

    Just because Obama worries you, Simple Truths, more than Farra, it doesn't make FarraCON a good person. Farrcon is still a racist. And his affiliation with 9/11 truth and those who encourage it, is severely damaging to the credibility of 9/11 truth.

    It's Yiddish

    For "crazy". And if people truly stand behind Farracon cult leaders and their radical beliefs, I question aspects of their mental clarity.

    Reply to kdub's fraudulent smear

    Kdub" "Is it because {Simple Truths} figured out I was jewish"

    How am I supposed to figure out what religion you are?

    You are an invisible person typing on a laptop on another continent.

    You could be a dark-skinned Hindu female or a pale Confucian teenager or a pink Albino Buddhist, for all I know.

    Don't bring false anti-semitism into the conversation.

    I couldn't give a rat's what religion you are.

    OY VEY

    You still didn't get my comment above. What "false anti-semitism" are you referring to?