Conspiracy Theory or Conspiracy Fact?
Assisting the 9-11 hijackers and their Saudi Agent "babysitters", close to the Bush family and secret meetings with the head of the CIA. Prince Bandar is the common link between the hijackers, Saudi Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence, and the Bush Administration.
"Bandar's father is Prince Sultan, one of the seven sons of Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia."
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/international-relations/prince-bandar.html
"Tenet and his briefers informed Cheney and President Bush of the intercepted communications. Then they went to see Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Bandar greeted the delegation arriving at his palatial home in northern Virginia, Tenet and his small band of deputies. They hugged. Tenet is a hugger. He and Bandar have passed countless hours together, trust building, a Tenet specialty."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205478-2,00.html
Admitted in 9-11 Commission:
"The CIA in particular pressed the Saudis hard on intelligence sharing. DCI Tenet met with Crown Prince Abdullah, Ambassador Bandar, the minister of defense and aviation, and other senior officials repeatedly and pressed them on counterterrorism. See, e.g., CIA memo,Tenet to Berger, Tenet's meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah in Jeddah, June 7, 1998. As late as July 3, 2001, the DCI was pressing Bandar, conveying the urgent need for information. CIA cable, DCI meeting with Bandar, July 3, 2001 .67. See, e.g., Mike interview (Dec. 11, 2003).The Saudis, however, were reluctant to provide details of incomplete investigations and highly sensitive to any information related to Saudi nationals, particularly those in the Kingdom. See CIA memo, Saudi CT Cooperation, June 18, 1998."
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-499.html
Prince Bandar is the common link between the hijackers, Saudi Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence, and the Bush Administration.
"But a smaller moment may have cemented the bond between the elder Bush and Bandar. When George and Barbara Bush visited the troops in Saudi Arabia during the Thanksgiving holiday in 1990, Bush called Bandar, who was in Saudi Arabia at the time. Bandar went to the private quarters in the royal palace where the Bushes were staying. Bush had tears in his eyes, and Bandar, worried, asked what had happened. Bush explained that Dorothy, their recently divorced daughter, was alone at the White House with her children. They had called her from the airplane and learned that Bandar's wife, Haifa, had invited Doro and her children to spend Thanksgiving with her. ("I don't have parents now," Haifa told me. "The Bushes are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them.")"
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/international-relations/prince-bandar.html
"Bandar's wife, Haifa, had invited Doro and her children to spend Thanksgiving with her. ("I don't have parents now," Haifa told me. "The Bushes are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them.")"
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/international-relations/prince-bandar.html
Haifa is the sister of the head of Saudi Intelligence at the time:
"Faisal's daughter, Haifa, is married to his nephew Bandar ibn Sultan, the former long-serving Saudi ambassador to the United States and current Saudi national security advisor."
"A third son, Turki bin Faisal Al Saud served as head of Saudi intelligence."
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Faisal_of_Saudi_Arabia
"After the September 11, 2001 attacks, she was investigated for a sequence of payments allegedly made to a Saudi national by the name of Omar al-Bayoumi, who is known to have assisted two of hijackers upon their arrival in Southern California, and who himself is suspected of being a Saudi intelligence asset."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_bint_Faisal
Bandar provides a direct link between Bush Administration and support for hijackers, gosh, small world:
The Senate and Congressional Inquiry into the attacks of 9/11 says:
"Since September 11, the FBI has learned that al-Bayoumi has connections to terrorist elements."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
"A Saudi national, Bassnan was living in San Diego last year and has been linked to Omar al Bayoumi, a Saudi student who befriended two men who wound up helping crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The sources also say that the ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, gave $15,000 to Bassnan."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003790,00.html
"After September 11, the FBI developed information clearly indicating that Bassnan is an extremist and a Bin Ladin supporter. [censured] [censured]"
page 229/858
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
"Bassnan was a close associate of al-Bayoumi, [censured] [censured] Bassnan also had close ties to a number of other persons connected to the hijackers, including [censured]" page 228/858
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
Cheney exposing that Bandar is one of their Intelligence assets...
"And we asked Bandar about his assessment of the fundamentalists inside Pakistan. Was it a relatively large percentage of the population or a relatively small percentage of the population."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16539006/T3-B9-Hurley-Sources-for-Final-Report-Sec-92-3-of-3-Fdr-11802-Transcript-BalzWoodward-I...
Off the record Intelligence provided to Bush Administration by their Saudi "friends":
"The United States has long allowed itself to depend largely on the secretive royal family for information. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador, has enjoyed direct access to presidents since he arrived in Washington in 1983."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/25/international/25SAUD.html?pagewanted=all
The FBI Agent "handler" for the informant who was housing the hijackers was investigating the money flow from the Saudi Embassy to the hijackers......
"Several members were "appalled" at what informed sources described as the "explosive" testimony of Special Agent Steven Butler, who recently retired from the FBI after his final posting in the bureau's San Diego field office."
"Government officials told U.S. News that Butler disclosed that he had been monitoring a flow of Saudi Arabian money that wound up in the hands of two of the 9/11 hijackers. The two men had rented a room from a man Butler had used as a confidential informant, the sources say. According to officials familiar with his account, Butler said that he had alerted his superiors about the money flows but the warning went nowhere."
"Butler is claiming ... that people [in the FBI] didn't follow up," says a congressional source. Adds another: "He saw a pattern, a trail, and he told his supervisors, but it ended there."
"After Butler testified, Eleanor Hill, the staff director for the 9/11 committee, detailed his statements in a memo to the Justice Department. Justice officials, saying Butler's testimony is classified, declined comment. FBI officials also declined comment, saying they are pursuing "all investigative leads ... in a thorough and confidential manner."
"FBI agents and CIA officers reconstructing the activities of the 19 hijackers were intrigued by two men, Osama Basnan and Omar al-Bayoumi, Saudi nationals who lived in the United States, despite having been charged with visa fraud. Investigators say Bayoumi helped Almihdhar and Alhazmi pay their rent and even threw them a party. According to Newsweek, Bayoumi also helped the two men open a bank account and called flight schools in Florida to arrange flying lessons for them."
"Congress, the FBI, and the CIA are now trying to learn whether any of the money Bayoumi spent on behalf of Almihdhar and Alhazmi came from the Saudi Embassy in Washington."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/features/saudi_021129.htm
"Butler is claiming ... that people [in the FBI] didn't follow up," says a congressional source. Adds another: "He saw a pattern, a trail, and he told his supervisors, but it ended there."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/features/saudi_021129.htm
Butler's boss and head of the FBI at the time was Louis Freeh.....
Freeh, who is now a lawyer and consultant for Bandar
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/04/hbc-90004706
Bandar and Saudi Intelligence knew all about the hijackers which means so did Tenet/CIA and Bush Administration:
Bandar admits it:
"Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya on Thursday, Bandar -- now Abdullah's national security adviser -- said Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision."
"If U.S. security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened," he said."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/01/saudiarabia.terrorism/index.html
Bush and Tenet two traitors who "outsourced" intelligence concerning 9-11:
"Some CIA sources say that George Tenet set the tone for the CIA's Saudi relationship by relying heavily on developing close relationships with top Saudi officials, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, then the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Tenet met regularly with the Saudi ambassador. CIA officers familiar with the agency's relationship with Saudi Arabia say that about once a month, Tenet would slip away from CIA headquarters and travel to Bandar's nearby estate in McLean, Virginia, for quiet talks."
"Bandar and Tenet had a very close relationship," said one CIA officer. "Bandar had a unique role, he was in charge of the American relationship for Saudi Arabia."
"But some CIA officers handling Saudi issues complain that Tenet would not tell them what he had discussed with Bandar, making it difficult for agency officials to know the nature of any deals their boss was arranging with the Saudis." page 188
"Prince Bandar, for example, was extremely close to the first President Bush and the entire Bush family; in his book about the war in Iraq, Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward reported that President Bush alerted Bandar to the timeing of the 2003 invasion before he notified Secretary of State Colin Powell." Page 189
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743270665/centerforcoop-20#noop
"Mission Accomplished"
"Two days after the attacks, the President asked Bandar to come to the White House. Bush embraced him and escorted him to the Truman balcony. Bandar had a drink and the two men smoked cigars."
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/international-relations/prince-bandar.html
"At one point, Bush told Bandar that if any Al Qaeda operatives were captured, "if we can't get them to cooperate, we'll hand them over to you." The clear implication was that the Saudis could do whatever they wanted to elicit information from suspects. A few days later, Bandar helped arrange to get bin Laden family members out of the United States, a move that was made under the supervision of the F.B.I. but caused public consternation."
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/international-relations/prince-bandar.html
Bandar is basically a member of the Bush Administration:
"Subsequently, on January 11, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers met in Cheney's office with Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States."
"At that meeting, Myers showed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador, a map labeled "top secret noforn," meaning that it was not to be seen by any foreign national, Woodward told CBS."
"The map outlined the U.S. battle plan for Iraq, which was to begin with an air attack, followed by land invasions moving north from Kuwait and south from Turkey, according to the book."
"Two days after the meeting with Bandar, on January 13, Bush met with Powell in the Oval Office to inform his chief diplomat that he had decided to go to war."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/
"COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The question that has arisen seems to be that Prince Bandar received a briefing on the plan. There's some suggesting that I hadn't."
"Of course I had. I was intimately familiar with the plan and I was aware that Prince Bandar was being briefed on the plan."
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/20/ltm.03.html
"Bandar -- now Abdullah's national security adviser -- said Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/01/saudiarabia.terrorism/index.html
"Bandar and Tenet had a very close relationship," said one CIA officer.
"But some CIA officers handling Saudi issues complain that Tenet would not tell them what he had discussed with Bandar, making it difficult for agency officials to know the nature of any deals their boss was arranging with the Saudis." page 188
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743270665/centerforcoop-20#noop
So, yes, not only should U.S. Intelligence have known all about the 9-11 hijackers and the 9/11 plot, it's in the public record. Conspiracy theory or conspiracy fact?
- jimd3100's blog
- Login to post comments
Theory or Fact?
Well ... there are plenty of documented facts that render the Official Story absurd and/or bring to light serious unanswered questions.
The use of "Conspiracy Theory" as a tool of ridicule arises from the fallacious demand that one provide a full, complete and provable explanation of what did occur ... before one gives up on something that is incredulous (in parts) and impossible (in parts), which is the Official Story. That's why, as to the uneducated who don't know all these details you cite, the assertion of a "Cover-up" is better than putting forth a theory of who did what and how by linking together all these available facts. And when I say "better," I mean better in terms of confronting the accusation of being conspiracy theorists.
That's not to say that people should not use the known facts to work on reasonable theories of who did what and why. But the majority of people who are willing to spend the time to look at such theories and the evidence supporting them with an open mind are not going to be a problem anyway. There is nothing wrong with coming up with sound theories that do a good job of accounting for the known facts. For example, there are plenty of facts that support the theory of controlled demolition. Moreover, the controlled demolition theory is vastly superior to the collapse theory of the Official Story, which is impossible. So working on such theories is good and important, but as to the general, uneducated public, it is easier to attack a falsifiable theory and assert that there has been a Cover-up ... than it is to explain and defend a theory that requires the teaching of a great deal of detailed facts.
It's all a question of setting and audience. The people skilled at attacking critics of the Official Story will demand that you provide a comprehensive explanation of what happened. Instead of giving into such demands, one can safely assert that the investigation was a joke, the Official Story is impossible and ridiculous, and these two are demonstrative of an obvious Cover-Up. If I were asked, "Well tell us then what happened or what do you believe happened?" My response - I'd say "Give to me subpoena power and I could get the answers for you very easily - all that is needed is a proper investigation and you can get detailed answers to these questions." The idea that some things are just beyond knowing or learning is absurd and I'd be prepared to attack that notion as well. If then asked to comment on various theories in the absence of a proper investigation -- I still probably would not give in. "Look - a lot of people have done good work demonstrating that the Official Story is absurd and impossible and have done their best to come up with alternate explanations in the absence of a proper investigation, but there simply is no sound basis for requiring the Citizenry to supply the answers to what happened when this is the responsibility of the authorities with the evidence or access to the evidence. And if the government did release the evidence that it's admittedly covering up, then perhaps the answers would be clear. But first you need to understand and admit that the evidence is being covered up and there has not been a proper investigation - Period."
Good job
Great article and set of links, Jim. Thanks for you effort.
btw, Have you read Family of Secrets by Russ Baker? It is like a high powered LCD Maglite aimed at a bunch of scattering cockroaches.
More on the informant
zombie bill hicks said.."btw, Have you read Family of Secrets by Russ Baker?"
Yup, I own the book.
More on this angle (to p**s off the anti-semites, and no planers):
"A former landlord of two of the September 11 hijackers was an FBI informant at the time, knowledgeable sources confirm to CNN."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/11/ar911.hijackers.landlord/
Bush let it be known that this is an area off limits to investigation. He committed obstruction of justice, and showed that he doesn't want us going here....so that's where I'm going, and I can see why he would do that. Pulling on this string leads straight to Bandar and the head of CIA and Bush himself......
From Senate and Congress Joint Inquiry into attacks of 9/11:
"The Administration has to date objected to the Inquiry’s efforts to interview the informant in order to attempt to resolve those inconsistencies. The Administration also would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant. Through an attorney, the informant has declined to respond to those interrogatories and has indicated that, if subpoenaed, the informant would request a grant of immunity prior to testifying."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
That was 2002. In 2003 The DOJ OIG report also shows that the informant would not agree to cooperate in their investigation.....
footnote 194 - The OIG was not able to interview the asset. The Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry had attempted to interview the asset without success. The Committee then submitted interrogatories that the asset declined to answer, asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege. The asset indicated through his attorney that if subpoenaed by the Committee, he would not testify without a grant of immunity.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbi-911/chap5.pdf
But the 9-11 Commission did interview the asset in 2004. So what changed? Well, the Bush Administration was controlling that investigation and someone had paid off this person with $100,000. Would a debunker explain if they thought that was enough or if they think he deserved half a million?
"In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset." {footnote number 197}
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbi-911/chap5.pdf
His name is Abdussattar Shaikh, and according to the 9-11 commission MFR he meet with a couple of staffers in the offices of his lawyers....
"When he asked both of them if they ever called home, they said that they did but that they used pay telephones. Al-Hazmi stated, "We go outside to use the telephone." Dr. Xxxxxx noted that they would have to drive from the neighborhood to use a pay telephone."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15877639/911-Commission-MFR-for-FBI-Informer-A...
Nothing suspitious about that right?
"Dr. Xxxxxx stated that," I have heard that al-Bayoumi is an agent (of the Saudis)."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15877639/911-Commission-MFR-for-FBI-Informer-A...
The MFR also exposed that this informant was involved in an investigation of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who's been in the news so much lately. The investigation was going on at the same time the hijackers were living with the informant making it very very hard to believe they didn't draw suspition on themselves, as they would meet with al-Aulaqi....
Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
"Dr. Xxxxxx said that al-Hazmi respected Aulaqi, and told Dr. Xxxxxx that he (al-Hazmi) spoke with Aulaqi on a regular basis."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15877639/911-Commission-MFR-for-FBI-Informer-A...
The informant was also aware of Hanni Hanjour. So the question is who is this informant really working for? CIA? Saudi Intelligence? He was working with Bandar's Saudi Agents that's for sure.
"Dr. Xxxxxx next had contact with al-Hazmi when he sent Xxxxxx an E-mail, Al-Hazmi signed the E-mail "Samir," but Xxxxxx knew that the E-mail came from al-Hazmi because of the electronic address. Dr. Xxxxxx sent a reply to al-Hazmi, stating in part, "say hello to Hani."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15877639/911-Commission-MFR-for-FBI-Informer-A...
What did he tell his handler SA Steven Butler?
"Dr. Xxxxxx does not have a specific memory of any of the conversations, or when the conversations occurred with[censured]."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15877639/911-Commission-MFR-for-FBI-Informer-A...
The FBI investigated al-Awlaki in 1999 and 2000 after learning he may have been contacted by a possible "procurement agent" for Osama bin Laden.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/world/69739347.html
"Several persons informed the FBI after September 11 that this imam had closed-door meetings in San Diego with al-Mihdhar, al-Hazmi and another individual," the Joint House-Senate Inquiry reported.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022...
Now there are some people who claim to be "truthers" while calling others....such as myself "fake truthers". The reason being is I wont call Prince Bandar a "hologram", I acknowledge his existence and the role he played in this. I am supposed to say "the Jews did it", and refuse to accept the reality of brainwashed religious fanatics. Everyone knows Israel was the main benefactor on the "War on Terror" the traitors in our own government have admitted it (Cheney and Bush) They are not just traitors, but traitors two times over. They want me to forget that Saudi and American Intelligence have a history of working together to manipulate these religious nuts, such as they did against the Russians in the Afghan war that helped bring down the Russian empire. In other words, they are completely clueless and explains why they are no planers and racists, and fall for every piece of disinfo that comes their way. How Embarrassing.
So what do these people have to do with 9/11?
I guess I don't get it. None of this seems to tell me about what really happened on 9/11.
9-11 was no surprise
Bin laden worked for Saudi Intelligence. This is a fact.
The head of Saudi Intelligence would therefor be Bin Ladens boss no?
The brother in law of the head of Saudi Intelligence is Prince Bandar.
Prince Bandar is a close friend of G Bush, and meets with him just before 9/11 and just after 9/11(other times as well)
Prince Bandar was paying people money who were "looking after the 9-11 hijackers". According to congressional Investigators, these people are Saudi agents.
Prince Bandar admitted Saudi Intelligence were tracking all the 9-11 plotters "with precision".
G Tenet is the head of the CIA and meets in secret with Prince Bandar who discuss things they don't share with other CIA employees.
Both Tenet and Bandar meet with the president.
All the hijackers let into the country while under CIA and Saudi surveillance.
President claims he never saw this coming.
Just after 9-11 Bandar and Bush smoke cigars on Truman Balcony. Seems like they still get along fine.
Tenet gets the highest award possible.....seems he did fine work according to the President.
This plot was known about since the time it was an idea floating around in the head of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad. The hijackers were known about and protected.
Why stop it? Isreal would benefit and so would Saudi Arabia = Bush is a traitor.
What evidence connects bin Laden to 9/11?
I have never seen compelling evidence connecting the alleged hijackers to 9/11. Nor have I seen reliable evidence connecting bin Laden to the crimes. There's plenty of evidence that these people were NOT involved, but not much going the other way.
Evidence?
The phone calls from the planes prove that not only were hijackers involved, but the authorities knew about these hijackings before any plane hit any building. Destroying Bush's " gosh, I just thought ...what a terrible pilot"....but since the "truth" movement wants to desperately protect Lord Bush while insulting the families at the same time, we will just say it's all fake. Well, some of us aren't going to go along with the "talking points" of the Federal Government.
Oh, you didn't think a disinfo campaighn would be run on a truth movement? What do you think it would consist of? No Planes perhaps? No such thing as radical jihadis? No such thing as cell phones working? Well, they were airphones. FYI. And the hijackers ARE on the flight manifests, and the ones getting on flight 77 ARE on video. Because that airport had a working video camera. And if these guys did buy tickets there would be a record of it. Just like there is. Of course we could just say "it's all fake". Saying "it's all fake" is not evidence, other than evidence of denial.
No one is claiming 9-11 was Bin Ladens idea. Not even the Government is claiming that. The Gov is claiming it's KSM idea. And the first two people Bin Laden insist he use for this plot are the two that the CIA admits they were tracking and the same two that were living in San Diego with an informant. Al-Hazmi and al mihdhar.
Khalid al mihdhar was under surveilance before he ever left his home. It's in the public record. His home was a communications hub.
Now let's see the evidence that they were not involved. You said there was lots. Let me guess....a passport found at the WTC? OK, so let me understand. If you sell drugs in your house, and they know because an informant bought them from you, and then the Police charge in and you flush the drugs down the toilet. And they plant some on you, is that proof you didn't sell drugs or proof the cops are corrupt?
Phone calls from planes are high drama but not high reliability
There are lots of problems with phone calls allegedly made from the hijacked planes. You can start with the Ted from Barbara Olson call.
Kerberos
You are going to have fun with Jim. From what I understand, Jim actually believes the official story that Arab terrorists hijacked airplanes and crashed them into buildings.
Key words
bbruhwiler8 said..."From what I understand, Jim actually believes the official story that Arab terrorists hijacked airplanes and crashed them into buildings."
The key words here are "from what I understand". You don't speak for me. Because you do not understand. I can speak for myself.
A fool's errand I'm sure
It seems like ancient history to me, but there are probably a good number proto-truthers who still believe a good share of the OCT fairytale.
Who's falling for fairytales?
Kerberos said..."There's plenty of evidence that these people were NOT involved, but not much going the other way."
"plenty of evidence" --- So far you have provided none.
Kerberos said...."proto-truthers who still believe a good share of the OCT fairytale."
Fake phone calls with zero evidence---flyovers- missiles-no planes-holograms--DEWs-victims who are "in on it" --TV Fakery-= fairytale
Who's falling for fairytales?
Faking phone calls would be easy
Your response is utterly absurd. I have never endorsed "flyovers- missiles-no planes-holograms--DEWs-victims who are "in on it" --TV Fakery-= fairytale". Faking phone calls would not be difficult for an intelligence agency such as the CIA or Mossad. Bear in mind that 9/11 is probably the most sophisticated psyop in world history. It is well known that Mossad has extensively infiltrated the US telecommunication industry. Initiating fake phone calls, and mimicking a few voices would be a piece of cake for these people.
Beliefs
Kerberos said..."There's plenty of evidence that these people were NOT involved, but not much going the other way."
"plenty of evidence" --- So far you have provided none.
What you choose to believe is not evidence of anything. Your beliefs mean nothing. I resent you trying to turn this into a cult. Cults base themselves on beliefs. I can chose to believe you are an undercover operative. It would be no problem for the CIA or Mossad to register on this site and post. Therefor You are an operative and I just proved it because of my belief. Pretty dumb huh?
Covering up for the Bush Administration while making the truth movement look insane is dumber. How about you try and focus on evidence and common sense instead of what you want to believe.
Start with Amanda Keller
Not to mention that Mohamed Atta's father, and veteran of Egyptian intelligence with ties to George De Mohrenschildt, reported having spoken to his son AFTER the attacks.
So there's more than one path connecting the JFK assassination and the 9/11 OCT. If this stuff weren't so tragic, it would be funny.
George De Mohrenschildt -> Lee Harvey Oswald -> Barry Seal -> N6308F -> George W. Bush -> James R. Bath -> Skyway Aircraft -> N900SA -> Royal Sons -> Huffman Aviation -> Mohamed Atta.
Evidence vs Beliefs
Amanda Keller has gone back and forth saying she lied and saying she didn't. In any case, this does not prove hijackers didn't exist. And it doesn't prove airphones don't work on airplanes.
In regards to Atta, I wrote on another forum long ago my problems with Atta and 9/11. The title of the thread is....
"Proof Atta never got on Plane on 9/11"
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=35453.0
Do I believe Atta was not on a plane on 9/11? Who cares? Who cares what I or you or anyone else believe? The reason I titled the thread that way (as I admit in the thread) is because I wanted to be challenged and it proven that he did get on the plane. There is evidence which SUGGESTS he didn't. He was flagged by CAPPS and his bags were left off his connecting flight. When you are flagged by CAPPS your bags are left off the flight until it is confirmed you boarded.
I am looking for evidence. Not beliefs. I am very willing to admit Atta boarded the flight but I need to see the interview with the Gate Agent that gave him his boarding pass. I haven't seen that yet, it exists. Where is it? All the evidence isn't in.
There is a difference between evidence and beliefs.
My son (Mohamed Atta) called me the day after the attacks
I have no reason to believe Atta or any of the others officially accused of the crimes actually participated. As for evidence that Atta did not kill himself on 9/11/01: Connection between Mohammad Atta and El-Amir Atta
I never mentioned airphones. You seem to be arguing against someone else.
Bruno
You're right and that's the biggest difference I have with some people. As you and I understand 9/11 to be one massive lie, a massive deception... we assume all facets of the official story to be false until proven true. But there are others, notably the "phone calls were real" and "AA77 really did hit the Pentagon" folks, who assume that these aspects of the official story are true until proven false. (IMHO those two aspects have been proven false BTW, successfully and beyond a shadow of doubt.)
Cell phones are not Airphones
Kerberos said..."You can start with the Ted from Barbara Olson call."
I already have.....
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22214
First do you know the difference between an airphone and a cell phone? If you told me you called me from an airphone and I said you were a liar because cell phones don't work from 40,000 feet, and you repeated that it was an airphone and I repeated that you are a liar cell phones don't work from 40,000 feet how long will it take before you dismiss me for a fool? About as long as it takes a debunker to dismiss an ill informed truther is the answer.
But let's pretend that the calls were cell phone calls...BTW almost none were.......
Explain to the forum why cell phones worked on other flights before 9-11........
"The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent."
http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20001208X06269.asp
Explain to the forum why cell phones worked on other flights on the day of 9-11......
"Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks while on a commercial flight returning home from South America. The captain explained that "terrorist attacks on airplanes" meant they were making an emergency landing. People on board using cell phones soon discovered the true nature of the day's events."
"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls.
http://news.cnet.com/Cell-phones-to-take-flight---page-2/2100-1039_3-572...
Using cell phones on planes is nothing extraordinary.....
Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins. What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations,
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed
They prefer you not use cell phones...not because you can't.....
"Sunday, July 22, 2001
But a study commissioned by the FAA in 1996 failed to find a single instance in which equipment was affected by a wireless phone. Nevertheless, electricity from cellular phones can, in theory, interfere with aircraft systems. For this reason, Boeing and the FAA support the FCC ban."
It's because they want your money......
Sunday, July 22, 2001
"Although many airplanes have public "air phones," passengers flinch at the fee of $6 per minute. (Airlines get a cut of the profits, which casts suspicion on why airlines want to keep cell phones turned off in the air.)"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...
How come people used cell phones 2 months before 9/11, and other passengers used them on 9/11, but if someone on the hijacked plane used one it's suddenly suspicious? Because the whole theory is BS is why...
Sunday, July 22, 2001
"I've seen passengers hunkered in their seats, whispering into Nokias. I've watched frequent fliers scurry for a carry-on as muffled ringing emanates from within. Once, after the lavatory line grew to an unreasonable length, I knocked on the door. A guilt- ridden teenager emerged. She admitted that she'd been in there for half an hour, talking to her boyfriend on a cell phone."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...
Sunday, July 22, 2001
"In 1999, oil worker Neil Whitehouse refused to switch off his mobile phone on a British Airways flight. When a cabin attendant advised him to turn off the unit because it could interfere with navigation systems, Whitehouse replied, "Why? Are we going to get lost?"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...
Published: July 7, 1999
There is no indication of when -- or if -- cell phone use might ever be allowed on airlines in flight. Though no airline official likes to discuss this, on-board telephones available at airline seats generate revenue that is lost when customers use personal phones.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/07/business/business-travel-some-airlines...
Posted on ZDNet News: Oct 5, 1999
"The airlines are misleading the traveling public," says John Sheehan, who headed the RTCA study and says he has often used his own cell phone in the sky. "There is no real connection between cell-phone frequencies and the frequencies of the navigation" or communications systems."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html?legacy=zdnn
How come cell phones could be used in 1999, and even on 9/11 but not on the hijacked flights? Because the whole theory is BS and is backed with zero evidence.......
Oct 5, 1999
Carr, a pilot, says he regularly used his cell phone while flying on commercial planes in the late 1980s. He says he is convinced the airline ban was, and is, "bogus" and not founded in science.
Sheehan, who is also a certified pilot, notes that cell phones are regularly used on private and corporate planes "thousands of times every day" without incident. He says he has dialed from the air on many occasions. When asked whether cell phones should be included among the list of devices such as laptop computers that are now permitted above 10,000 feet, he says "that would be OK. It's not a problem."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html?legacy=zdnn
"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls.
http://news.cnet.com/Cell-phones-to-take-flight---page-2/2100-1039_3-572...
"but we were on the Delta flight [1989], the one out of three 8am flights departing Logan that did not get hijacked. Instead, we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight"
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/delta_flight_1989_9_11/travel...
But like I said. The calls from flight 11 before any plane hit any building were from AIRPHONES, begging for help.
Bush...."there's one terrible pilot"
Bush and Rice thank you for your efforts in covering this up. Frankly I'm tired of the Truth movement helping these people.
Kerberos
You can find me deconstructing a small amount of jim's essay here at this comment:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22214#comment-224304
And of course David Ray Griffin wrote a thorough rebuttal to jim here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22369
Lonely?
I happen to think that exposing how The person who has secret meetings with the head of the CIA, and meets in private with the President, while funneling money to hijackers(that you claim either don't exist or are holograms I guess)Admitted they were tracking these non existent holograms, and also admitted 9-11 could have been prevented is an important topic worth looking into it.
Others simply think this 9-11 truth thing is nothing but a vehicle to beg for attention to themselves.
Case in point.......
http://www.911blogger.com/node/23088
Can't address any of these points made in an earlier comment I see.....
Explain to the forum why cell phones worked on other flights before 9-11........
How come people used cell phones 2 months before 9/11, and other passengers used them on 9/11, but if someone on the hijacked plane used one it's suddenly suspicious?
How come cell phones could be used in 1999, and even on 9/11 but not on the hijacked flights? Because the whole theory is BS and is backed with zero evidence.......
Nope can't address any of that, nor can you figure out that airphones work on planes, that's why they are called Airphones, and the airphones were what the flight attendants used to call authorities before any plane hit any building, but you continue to assist Rice And Bush when they claim they knew a commercial airliner hit the WTC, but thought "gosh, what a weird accident, must be a terrible pilot". I'm sure they appreciate your help. I'm not accusing you of being an "operative" that's what you paranoids do. In fact it's obvious what your motives are. It's the usual lame motive....it's "please give me attention!!" The proof is in your own blog, right here....
http://www.911blogger.com/node/23088
How Embarrassing.
Great links Adam
You can see Jim's claims about the phone calls being real are debunked again and again by a multitude of folks here on 911blogger, not to mention DRG's rock solid presentation, and you're presentation is in depth, detailed and thorough as usual.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA
wacla.org
Usefull Idiots
"completely clueless and explains why they are no planers and racists, and fall for every piece of disinfo that comes their way. How Embarrassing." -- Jimd3100
"proto-truthers who still believe a good share of the OCT fairytale." --Kerberos
"we assume all facets of the official story to be false until proven true. But there are others, notably the "phone calls were real" and "AA77 really did hit the Pentagon" folks, who assume that these aspects of the official story are true until proven false. (IMHO those two aspects have been proven false BTW, successfully and beyond a shadow of doubt.)"-- Adam Syed
"You can see Jim's claims about the phone calls being real are debunked again and again by a multitude of folks here on 911blogger, not to mention DRG's rock solid presentation, and you're presentation is in depth, detailed and thorough as usual." -- bbruhwiler8
"we assume all facets of the official story to be false until proven true." - Adam Syed
You might think you are a more respected and thorough researcher than Jim Hoffman. You're not.
See...
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html
The official story says 9/11 happened on 9/11, you agree, therfor you support the "official story".
The official story says the WTC towers were completely destroyed on 9/11, you agree therfor support the "official story".
That's pretty dumb huh? This is dumber.......
Adam Syed and bbruhwiler8 are helping the Bush administration with their cover up. And using 9-11 blogger to assist them.
We can prove that Bush, and Rice, and Rumsfeld knew that terrorist acts were taking place BEFORE the second hit on the WTC and did nothing. We can also prove that Bush and Rice knew a COMMERCIAL airliner hit the WTC BEFORE Bush stepped into the classroom and did nothing (but stall for time) see....
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22368
We can prove that the two people authorized to issue shoot down orders Bush and Rumsfeld never issued any shoot down orders until the attacks were over.
We know this because one of the "holograms" keyed his mike and said "we have some planes" also the flight attendants were using AIRPHONES to call AA. The Boston controllers not only contacted the FAA, they took it upon themselves to contact the military to report HIJACKINGS! This is before any plane hit any building and this information was making it's way up the chain of command, and reached Rice before Bush stepped into the classroom.
Adam syed and bbruhwiler8 both are covering up all this and assisting the Bush administration by claiming no hijackers and no phone calls. Even though we can also show that they knew all about the hijackers and let them in the country and even assisted them. Adam Syed and bbruhwiler8 are helping the Bush administration cover this up. Neither is as interested in the truth as they are interested in promoting themselves....see...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/23088
But the "usefull idiots" on this very thread desperatly trying to protect Bush Rice and Rumsfeld claim I'm reporting fairytales. Yet the faiytale of no phone calls and no hijackers are assisting the Bush Administration. And making the truth movement look insane. All refuse to address Bandar admitting 9-11 could have been prevented. All refuse to address how the hijackers were assisted by Bandar and his agents. All refuse to address these questions while lieing that they already have....
Explain to the forum why cell phones worked on other flights before 9-11........
Explain to the forum why cell phones worked on other flights on the day of 9-11......
How come people used cell phones 2 months before 9/11, and other passengers used them on 9/11, but if someone on the hijacked plane used one it's suddenly suspicious?
How come cell phones could be used in 1999, and even on 9/11 but not on the hijacked flights?
Why are you calling AIRPHONE calls cell phone calls?
Why are you on 9-11 blogger? The answer to that is found in this thread. To distract from real documented evidence and replace it with fairytales and self promotion.
The term is "usefull idiot".
Awesome!
Love the quote you attributed to me. Thank you for posting. Could you please add this quote from me, too?
"Hoffman's analyses of the Pentagon are full of holes, sorry for the pun.
Hoffman's deceptions - http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhnjtcf4_13dbz4ckdt
More deceptions - http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhnjtcf4_14dbznr3f4 " - Bruno Bruhwiler
What happened on 9-11
Kerberos said..."None of this seems to tell me about what really happened on 9/11."
On 9-11 planes flew into buildings. Lots of people got killed.