In the third hour of her January 2nd radio show, Randi Rhodes discussed Bush senior's recent odd behavior - referencing the Warren commission report and JFK conspiracy theories during his speech at Ford's memorial. Randi drew comparisons to his recent breakdown while giving a speech regarding his son Jeb. She questions whether his recent strange behavior is due to a forthcoming wave of questions by the incoming democratic majority. Amongst this segment Randi quite bluntly questions the collapses of the twin towers as well as WTC7.
Let's hope that Randi will continue to voice her concerns over what really happened on 9/11, and that her voice won't fall on deaf ears with the incoming democratic majority.
Check out the first segment - about 12 minutes - in the MP3 linked above.
Thanks to randirhodesarchives.com for the archive!
WHEN President Bush declared last week that "nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered" the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.
They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.
No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly...
Continued at top link...
An article in the "Travel News and Comment" section of the Times of London yesterday (30-August 2006, but reported on Yahoo news today), by Mark Ferry has the headline:
I will not post the entire article here, please click the headline which is a
link to the article.
An important quote from Ryanair spokesman is "Ryanair will soon enable
passengers to use their mobile phones and electronic communications devices in
the air, just as they do on the ground. That means they will be able to pass on
the good news to workmates, friends and family that they are travelling on
another on-time flight with Europe's most punctual airline."
The importance of this article to the 9/11 truth movement is obvious.
The simple question is why all the fanfare about this new technology, when calls
from airplanes were obviously not a problem on September 11th 2001?? Who
can ever forget "Hi mom this is Mark Bingham"??
I've tried to post comments raising this question on the Times website to
On internet conspiracy theories - bbc.co.uk
Journalists usually take government facts in good faith, albeit they're somewhat spun and edited. No-one ever got sacked for printing the OV, and, let's face it, challenging it takes a lot of graft for a busy reporter. So when they 're told that Iraq has chemical weapons, journalists tend to publish it . But for a reader or viewer, rule one is 'Don't believe the OV until you see proof. But assume it is true if you do see decent proof.' The September 11 CT that said 'Flight 93 was brought down by the airforce not the passengers' was once a widely held internet CT, but then decent taped evidence came along and undermined it among all but the most cynical.
Who has the better background narrative - the CT or the OV? In other words who sets the more convincing dramatic backdrop to the events in question? The Diana CTs sold well because they had this enthralling background plot and cast that everyone was already familiar with, but the OV was also a credible story, just painfully prosaic. On the other hand the CT that the Iraq evidence was faked had a really consistent hinterland of elegantly intermeshing revelation and gossip, whereas the OV narrative always seemed to be changing or unravelling. But the background to the World Trade Centre attacks had an utterly compelling received wisdom, whereas the CTs just never remotely fitted with how any sensible person expects the world to behave.
A call to all Canadians and Americans alike:
Listen to the CBC call the scholars "not credible" on the radio show "The Current":
Then, hammer the CBC with the truth! Here is their Contact Page:
Thanks to stoplying.ca for sending this in.
...Those publishing this essay should check my actual comments on the C-SPAN broadcast. I made no such statement that "there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals." This is FALSE, UNTRUE, AND TOTALLY NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, NOR DO I IN ANY WAY SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT AT ALL.
I need your help. I have a meeting here now ==very serious -- about my standing here -- in 1/2 hour. I must prepare.
Please find out who to write to, to protest these untrue statements, so that after my meeting I will be able to respond. If you would respond in my behalf, I would deeply appreciate that. These lies need to be challenged, for anyone can listen to CSPAN and determine that I did not make the alleged comments...
- Steven Jones.
Truth Seekers, not Bush Bashers
"9/11 Bush bashers" by Jon Moseley, worldnetdaily (16 August 2006), alas, is reprehensible and irresponsible in almost every respect. He abuses language and logic and attempts to smear me without justification in an apparent effort to mislead the public from appreciating the objective and scientific findings about the events of 9/11 that have been established by Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization that I founded and co-chair with Steve Jones, a physicist from BYU, who has done extensive studies of how the towers were in fact destroyed.