....ya' mean the way the "communists" burned the Reichstag?
---that took a long time to figure out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a leftie, I feel I have to be more careful about propogating conspiracy theories than the harder nosed. Thanks to the way the right have manovered themselves, you're already up against a wall with people thinking you're nuts and you only harm you cause by playing into their hands and talking unsubstantiated nonsense.

Having said that, there does seem to be something amiss in the 9/11 thing. Personally, the only document I've seen that makes me wonder was written by Prof. Steven Jones, a Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University. Whereas he draws no conclusions, the evidence he presents to suggest there's more to the attacks than meets the eye is rather compelling. You can find a link to his work here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The appeal of this argument rests on two fallacies. First, that grand effects must arise from grand causes. Second, that the beneficiaries of an event must have been its instigators. Both are natural in the associative world of human thinking, but neither is rational or particularly tenable empirically.

Consider this sharp, tendentious glint of exaggeration: "[The Kennedy assassination] remains perhaps the most riveting, sad and perplexing moment in our nation's past." Of huge events, the assassination of Lincoln was far more devastating. Of petty mis-steps, the choice of butterfly ballots by a single election commissioner, a tiny nonconspiratorial stupidity, has apparently all but put an end to the Republic. The beneficiaries of the ballot decision had nothing to do with it; they were merely quick to take advantage. This last reminds us that if we wish to change the world, or keep it, we must try to pay attention to it, as it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here are some interesting links to information which could be usefull in understanding the events of 9/11.

On the colapse of the buildings: I now believe there is evidence to suggest that they were demolished by controlled demolitions.

http://www.st911.org/

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

http://wtc7.net/

http://911research.wtc7.net/
wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html

Of course, draw your own conclusions, but the colapse of the WTC 7 building looks very similar to the implosion world pictures. The article raise 17 questions which have not been adequately answered.

If this attak was a inside jobe, who did it and why?

Check it out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this article presents not one shred of evidence in favor of the conspiracy theories. It's legitimate to present a case for more digging into the events that led to 9/11--I support that wholeheartedly--but better if there are some facts included.

One could easily point out that the extent and formulation of any conspiracy to kill Kennedy proves precisely nothing about 9/11. Add in the "juicy" tone of this piece and the fact that most theories about 9/11 are simply off the hinges ("controlled demolition", fallacious and erroneous comparisions between *vastly* different buildings, etc.), and the proper call for more investigation teeters in danger of seeming nuts-by-association. We can't let the necessary call to figure out what got screwed up on such a massive scale get lumped in with "look out for the black helicopters!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So was Nixon. And I am convinced Bush is insane. Every time I watch Bush give a speech, I become more convinced he is insane. There is a total disconnect between what he is saying and his facial expression and body language.
Psychopaths can be incredibly charismatic, which allows them the opportunity to become leaders. History is littered with the wreakage of insane leaders.
But nobody TALKS about it! Collectively, we need to pretend that they are good men (and women).
The emperor has no clothes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet finally acknowledges that the "official" 9/11 story is completely absurd?

Won't Don Hazen's Democrat buddies come down on him like the Furies? Lots of "truthseekers" have accused him of being a gatekeeper, of refusing to address the issue. This article shocks me, even though it still pegs it as a "conspiracy theory" and has a generally pejorative tone.

Anyway, you don't need to know exactly what happened to know that we have not been told even a shred of the true, full story.

Sadly, we will never know the truth.

And even if we did, no one would listen. You could have the literal smoking gun, and run around shoving it in everyone's face and they would still give you that blank, vapid look. Americans simply don't want to know. It would shatter, once and for all, the delusional bubble they live in... The real obstacle is not the "truth", but base human psychology.

Or, in the words of my friend and colleague Michael Rivero:

"“Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the governnment official (I forget who) who in the early 90s said something to the effect of "What we need is another Pearl Harbor." His reasoning was that an attack of this sort on America would allow the government to mobilize public sympathy and support for any foreign policy, regardless of how extreme it might be. You'll recall that the Pearl Harbor attacks (which credible evidence suggests were known about by US government officials in advance) eventually led to the dropping of atomic bombs -- about as extreme as you can get.

Add this revealing statement to the various testimonies of firefighters and witnesses who claim that the buildings were laced with explosives, to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the insurance policies that were taken out on the buildings, to the fact that FEMA (yes, that FEMA) was called in on September 10, to the initially-reported (but since doggedly ignored) 9/11 arrests of four non-arabs caught planting bombs on the George Washington Bridge, to the many ignored (and highly credible and specific) intelligence warnings, to the nonsensical actions of the government both before and after "learning" that planes had been hijacked and used as weapons, to Bush sitting stupidly in the classroom, to the Bush statement that he (impossibly) learned about the first attack by witnessing it live on television, to the testimonies of various scientists and architectural experts who have concluded the buildings only collapsed because they were "pulled", to the safe extradition of Saudis from the country in the days following the attacks, to the fact that bin Laden used to be on the CIA payroll, to the carrying out of the exact kind of foreign policy that "another Pearl Harbor" would allow, to the refocus of the "war on terror" from the capture of bin Laden to the war on Iraq, to the governnment refusal to release footage from nearby hotel and gas station security cameras that captured the Pentagon attack... have I missed anything?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the official story does not add up. I don't know if the government helped plan the attacks, if they knew they were going to happen and just looked the other way, or if there is some other explanation, but it is very clear to me that the government is hiding something, and not for purposes of national security, because there are none.

But the main question that remains for me is if I even want the truth on this matter to be told. Considering our moral and intellectual cowardice since 9/11, I struggle to believe that we, as a nation, could handle such a truth. On the other hand, it might be exactly what we need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a lot of corroboratory evidence to strongly suggest that the official version of what happened on 9/11/01 is inadequate.

1. Official NYPD interviews with emergency personnel, withheld until recently, and now available (after the official version is fully entrenched?), contain dozens of eyewitness accounts which support the idea of a controlled demolition. Many, many police and fire and EMT personnel report hearing "pop, pop, pop" sounds identical to those of planned demolitions they had been on hand for. Those who were in the buildings report that there were large explosions well after the initial impacts, which are not explainable by any materials normally present in the structure.

2. The WTC7 building was not hit by a plane, but collapsed in precisely the same fashion we all saw in the collapse of the other buildings on video... it folded down like an accordion. No fire could have produced this.

3. The BBC has reported several times, until pressured to drop it by the Blair team, that five of the alleged hijackers were seen and left money trails in Europe well after 9/11. So how were their names linked to the planes? If the FBI's account is faulty in this regard, then given their track record, how can the rest of their report be trusted?

4. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that Bush knew something was coming. Some right-wing Christian prayer-breakfast attenders have recounted that Bush suggested he had foreknowledge, which they attribute to a close connection with God. His demeanor at the school when the news was given to him has been derided as unfocused and ineffective. My impression (obviously not evidence) is that he was not surprised that something had happened, he was surprised at the specifics.

5. Why were no Air Force jets sent to engage the planes, well after the hijackings were known of?

6. Why were the PDB memos suggesting an imminent attack so lightly brushed aside, by a White House who were so eager to make use of the attack once it happened? How does the posture of aggressive pursuit post-attack, and relentless use of wiretapping and spying technology well before 9/11, square with the complete lack of use of actual information thus gleaned?

Enough to prove one theory or another? Of course not. (I'm inclined to believe it was a double-blind scheme involving actual militants who were used as pawns) Enough to make anyone with an open mind think twice? You bet. Ask yourself this... if it were Clinton or Gore, how would this be handled by the press and the Congress?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its already been uncovered, its just being ignored by the powers that allowed it to happen including the mainstream press. Don't forget, Roger Ailes who is the CEO of Fox was the Campaign manager for Bush SR when he ran for President.

Give me a break. Many of us have the evidence on CD's for preservation, books have been written about it and committees formed to study it. I am thinking specifically of the academics who have recently formed such a committee to investigate and report the results of their investigation.

We don't need Congress or the President to pass around the truth, we just need to preserve that which we know and when time comes impeach, try, convict and sentence the criminals for their 'crimes against humanity" in what they did on 9-11. It will come to the fore much sooner than Kennedy. Its already here.

Once those academicians are done with their study, the credibility level will rise to the level it should be at and embarrass them into doing something about it. I intend to wait and then hold community meetins about it and expose all to the general public. If the press ignores it, the people we educate will see the truth of it by the actions of the press. It will be extremelly revealing. P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The conspiracy theorists ask, in part, why the hijackers were allowed such easy access to our country and why they were allowed to move so freely. At the time much of this was going on, Clinton was in office and the 2000 election results were far from certain. I have seen substanial evidence that the threat was not taken seriously by the Bush administration, and no reasonable person would argue that Bush has not milked this tragedy for all it's worth (and then some), but to suggest Bush or his cabal had ANY role in orchestrating or arranging the attacks is beyond ludicrous and damaging to the progressive arguments. This would actually support some conservative claims that Clinton was more responsible for 9/11 than Bush, and could easily lead to the determination that it was the Democrats who orchestrated the attack.

Let's maintain our focus: Bush and his team failed to heed multiple warnings, and have used the tragedy to pursue a horrendous foreign policy that has destroyed our standing and credibility in the world, our local economy and domestic programs, and hundreds of thousands of lives. No conspiracy necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I dissagree that this topic is unknowable. In fact is is already largely deciphered. I recommend the DVD called Loose Change 2 available for free download at http://www.question911.com/links.php and from the producer Dylan Avery at http://www.loosechange911.com/ or from Ebay for about $6

Aso available for free download and on Ebay is the DVD called Confronting the Evidence:A Call To Reopen the 9/11 Investigation by Jimmy Walters. This DVD includes Eric Hufschmid's DVD on 9/11, Painful Deceptions. These provide quite alot of information to consider.

Last but certainly not least, I recommend the work of Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. They broadcast on WBAI from NYC and have audio archived their shows on their website at http://takingaim.info/shows/audio.html I hope those who feel that the events of our time our beyond our comprehension will give these two people some attention.

Personally the, uncontested, fact that the steel panned and carpet covered concrete floors were pulverized top to bottom and spread out over the city should be evidence enough for anyone of a controlled demolition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the story Decoding the Secrets of JFK and 9/11 because--unfortunately--what the government often tells us about such matters is generally a small bit of truth buried amongst mountains of nonsense.

For example, the "Single-Bullet Theory", in reference to the Kennedy Assassination, is probably the biggest piece of nonsense that I have ever heard. Just the idea that a bullet could do so much damage, ricocheting off of bone, yet remain almost pristine just boggles the mind.

When you include that the very same bullet does some aerial manuevers that almost defy the the laws of physics then there is no way that a thinking person can believe the Warren Commission's account that says that only a single assassin was involved.

And in reference to 9/11, while I would like to think that the Bush Administration would not do something as horrible as orchestrating the fall of the Twin Towers in Manhattan, it would hardly be the most terrible thing we, as humans, have done to each other (and often for much, much less benefit).

The only thing that doesn't work in favor of such a conspiracy theory is that it would probably have to have a monstrous amount of infrastructure involved; quite possibly hundreds of people, and when you involve so many individuals you exponentially increase the odds of someone running off at the mouth.

The Bush Administration is renown for secrecy, but I doubt that even they would be able to keep the lid on such a story for long (as the leak of President Bush's covert spying program illustrates).

After all, loose lips are aren't only good for sinking ships; they can also bring down a government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MY 9-11 theory is that Bush was so power drunk over his and Vincente Fox's election victories and his coup of the tax cut that he couldn't be bothered to listen to a warning. Remember how he couldn't wait to go to Mexico to gloat? How many are aware that Foxy is Jeb's brother-in-law? Fox's sister is Jeb's wife Columba. As some have posited, maybe he saw it as a way to grab Iraq's oil. As to why the Air Force was not activated till too late, it was late pm before Bush emerged from beneath the bed on Air Force 1 to "take charge." As for AF1's communications being out of order, that is the kind of BS found in large amounts on the Crawford ranch behind the cows. Does anyone seriously believe the plane carrying the most powerful man in the world would be out of touch for long? He landed in Louisana, Colorado and NORAD hq in Omaha, were their communications also down? When Rove finally thougt of an excuse Bush emerged blathering of Axes Of Evil naming North Korea and Iran. Also part of the agenda was a 3 pronged Bush bonanza. First to distract attenion from Bush's failure, two to lead up to an invasion of Iran, gainng control of its oil and last but far from least the North Korea gambit allowed Bush to revive Reagan's failed Star Wars which when tested failed just as miserably.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the author:
". . .the possibility that the attacks of 9/11 were encouraged by elements of the U.S. government, or that the government looked the other way, permitting al Qaida to carry out its attack on "the homeland." The most persuasive reason to consider a counterconspiracy comes after tallying the beneficiaries of the attacks."

Simply looked the other way? Then who rigged WTC 1 and 2, the twin towers, and especially the barely-damaged WTC 7, with explosives so that ALL THREE of them would fall neatly into their own footprints, exactly like a planned demolition? Considering how difficult this is for professionals to pull off, the odds that this could be coincidence are astronomical! Also keep in mind that before or since, no steel-framed skyscraper has EVER failed due to fire, and that the impact damage to all three WTC buildings was asymetrical, which should have resulted in an asymetrical failure, i.e., toppling over, NOT neatly dropping straight down.

Oh, yeah, and that 1,800 mile-per-hour F-15's, which can cover the distance from Washington to New York in LESS THAN EIGHT MINUTES, and can be scrambled from the ground in less than five (the Washington-NYC nexus is one of the most heavily air-defended regions in the nation), couldn't intercept far slower airliners that were at one time hundreds of miles from their targets? Oh, pu-leeese!

Let's take a look at who benefitted (partial list):
––Bush and the neocons, who got the reason, the "New Pearl Harbor" they wished for in their "Project for a New American Century" (interesting reading, that) in order to accelerate world economic and financial domination (their idea, not mine).
––The military-industrial complex, by the morphing of the war on terror into a war in Iraq, which kept all those factories making guns and tanks and planes a-hummin'.
––The new owner of the World Trade Center, who bought an asbestos-abatement nightmare which would cost millions. He got a DOUBLE-PAYOUT on his insurance (two planes, two separate claims, two payouts. . .yep, that's the ticket!), resulting in a nice profit totalling billions.
––Companies being investigated for corporate fraud: The Securities and Exchange Commission's corporate fraud offices were in WTC 7.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, but enough to show that the official explanation stinks to high hell.

So, I'm not shaking in my boots and peeing my pants or running around with my hair on fire over a possible future attack: I may be nuts, but I do not believe it will happen unless it is deemed necessary by the fascist neocons running our country into the ground. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't think they originated the attack – but I am becoming convinced they took advantage of it, and possibly, POSSIBLY, influenced its design to accomplish maximum social damage (and their political gain) with minimal actual casualties. If we want to find the source of our terror, we need to investigate closer to home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are a couple of interesting DVD's out that might be of interest here. The DVD "Loose Change" and the second edition of "Loose Change" bring up some very interesting questions and responses. Check out these documentaries just to consider another prospective....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we start to sound like the far-right paranoid wingnuts we love to make fun of. This is a very bad time for the left to be losing touch with reality like the GOP leadership has. (And look where that got us.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Robert M. Bowman, James H. Felter, Wany Madsen, John McMurty, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, Represent the best and brightest in their fields. They conclude Unanimously that the 9/11 comission was dead wrong in their findings!

Structural steel used in ALL buildings in New York city must be listed by Underwriter's Labratory to withstand 2000 degrees for 6 hours. Jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees at optimum conditions. Yet the first tower fell 57 minutes after the frirst plane hit! DON'T BUY IT!!!!!!!

WTC7 was hit by no airplanes and had only minumum fire damage yet it collapsed just 7 hours after the attack! DON'T BUY IT!!!!!

In the entire history of structural engineering, not one steel frame building has been brought down by fire either before or after 9/11! Yet we are to believe that three were brought down in one day? DON'T BUY IT!!!!!

Frank DeMartiini. a project manager for the WTC said the buildings were designed to redistibute loads in the event of an airliner strike, whose effects would be like "pucturing mosquito netting with a pencil". Yet they all completely collapsed in a nice neat pile! DON"T BUY IT!!!!!

Our government was DIRECTLY responsible for those deaths at WTC and are covering it up to aid George Bush in his faccist agenda! BELIEVE IT!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After meeting Don Hazen at a fundraiser and sitting across from him at lunch while my husband went off about the lack of truth we've heard about 9/11, I am relieved to see that AlterNet isn't shrinking from this story! We thought maybe he thought we were nuts.

Thank you AlterNet for injecting even the IDEA of alternative truths. This country needs to have this discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The right half of the country thinks the left half’s reasoning for the Iraqi occupation is a conspiracy theory, and should the GOP consolidate their coup, in twenty years the textbooks will say “The Iraqi war halted the tyrannical world domination of the most dangerous leader since Adolph Hiter, Saddam Hussein.” Those who win write the history books.

In any case, I was wondering if anyone hard evidence of the installation of Demo-charges in the Two Towers? If anyone has watched Discovery Channel, it’s not exactly easy to get to the load bearing members of a building, and it’s not exactly something you do overnight. Were the towers undergoing fairly large-scale renovation? I haven’t read anything that indicates that.

The other thing I see is why bother? Which would have been more dramatic? The towers imploding or the towers falling over? After all, if you were willing to kill three thousand, another couple thousand would make no difference.

The reason I am skeptical about a 9/11 conspiracy is that if you are willing to go that far, why didn’t the US NOT find WMDs in Iraq? We had military supremacy in the area, we know when other power’s satellites fly overhead, why not drop some Semi-truck rolling laboratories out in the desert and burry them? Send and imbedded news crew in for video, flight them back to the US, have the CIA recruit scientist who will validate they were of Iraqi manufacture, stonewall any request by the UN for independent conformation (after all, who cares what the rest of the world thinks). The Sheeple would fall right into line.

From my perspective, what is more plausible is that the West Ideology has been trampling over Islamic Ideology for so long that we provided the polarization for the Islamic Extremist to consider what was in reality a very soft target, the US, and the GOP jumped on it.

The Kennedy assassination is no less a mystery. After nearly causing WWIII, I think the Kennedy’s were trying to work at reducing US-USSR tensions and that pissed off the Military Industrial Complex, who killed him.

The really, really sad part is that the GOP seems no more capable of being dictatorship than it was in participating in a democracy. However, as someone once said, War is good for Business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is nonsense. I'm no friend of Bush & Co., but as amoral, opportunistic and power hungry as they are, I don't think even the neo-cons would deliberately rig 9/11.

I have heard that the Israelis were across the harbor filming the whole thing. What I don't know is whether they were there before the fact. Does anyone know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and edited in a disgraceful manner.

They arrested Cindy for wearing a tee shirt that told the truth.

That's your government for you.

And Alternet censors people who express themselves with strong and colorful language that is to the point.

Let America speak, or be relegated to the trash heap of meaningless forums.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having perused "Project For a New American Century" sometime before the 2000 election, after the initial shock of the 9/11 attack, I couldn't help but be struck by the almost uncanny serendipity it provided for the neo-consters. If one were to suggest that such an unprecedented catastrophe constituted nothing less than manna from heaven for these dedicated political theorists bent on proving their theory, would one be automatically consigned to the trash bin of off-the-wall conspiracy loonies? (That's what the 2000 coup was all about, after all.) Or would it possibly inspire anyone to look deeply enough into Dick Cheney's face to note the pure malevolence etched into it? If so, you'll notice that revelatory gleam of evil is quite sufficient to harbor the belief that his noble ends justify any means. He's an old soul; men of such pernicious megalomania pop up every so often in history. And they've never been known to shy away from initiating mass mayhem. The quintessential Cardinal Richelieu--he's my candidate for conspirator-in-chief.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven't seen anybody here specifically mention the war games going on on 9/11. That, to me, along with WT7, has always been the smoking gun.

There were at least 4; Northern Vigilance, Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian - or something to that effect. All clearly related just by their names. Some of them involving live fly highjacking drills and inserting false blips on FAA radar screens. That is not a coincidence.

WTC Demolitions

War Games

More Mountains of Evidence < -- For the coincidence theorists out there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What should be studied in my opinion is the statistical likelyhood of some of the well timed positions placed preceding September 11.
Here's a few taken from the net:
The most notable reference to the stock market is the report of a high volume of put options being purchased in the days before 9/11 on both American and United Airlines. The number of put options purchased was more than six times higher than normal.
Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw a 1200% increase in put options bought in the four days preceding 9/11.
Put options were also purchased for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories in the World Trade Center
Munich Re, the world's biggest reinsurance company, was also examined. A reported $2.5 million in profits made trading options went unclaimed after 9/11. Insider trading is said to have also occurred in several other countries immediately before the attacks of Sept. 11.
Investigators from the U.S. Secret Service contacted a number of bond traders regarding large purchases of five-year Treasury notes before the attacks. Five-year Treasury notes are considered one of the best investments in the event of a world crisis.
Germany's central bank governor Ernst Welteke says there were signs of suspicious movements in oil and gold prices before the attack.

Perhaps a case can be made that for whatever reason, some highly placed people were betting right. If, through statistical analysis, one can show signs of advanced knowledge then we can ponder the question of why were we not aware.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...and want to go somewhere to find out the truth, and be allowed to speak frankly, go to cyclone696.blogspot.com

Forget this silly forum.

These people are years behind.

The real shit's about to hit the fan...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I recommend you read about all these "coincidences".

"The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch Loose Change, 2nd Edition. You can probably download it for free if you search hard enough. I'm a member of prisonplanet.tv, so I got it there. (It's well worth the paltry $5 a month.) If you cannot find it at least download and watch the first Loose Change. You should be able to find that by googling Loose Change Dylan Avery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.question911.com/links.php

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Honestly, this article puts it lightly. If you look openmindedly at the credible evidence available on video and in books, a reasonable person has no recourse but to considerly the strong possibility that elements in the Bush Administration -and allied with it - were directly and indirectly involved in both creating and covering up 9-11.

What is it about discussing how the Twin Towers fell in perfect demolition that is "reactionary" and "self-defeating?" Why can't we talk about how the official story defies the laws of physics? When is it that you shut down your mind to the evidence and shout down efforts for a full inquiry?

What if we became less concerned with what's "politically favorable" and more concerned with the truth?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too many coincidences to be coincidences. Sad, but not surprising. They pulled the bomb sniffing dogs the day before…war games and destroyed FAA tapes. Eye-witness accounts suppressed. No mainstream coverage.

Anyone else to the point where they are just so disgusted they WANT the black van to show up and put a bullet in their heads?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Glad to see attention to this..
there's such a plethora on the web though, probably lots
of posers amongst them. I've long been a Pacifica network listener, and here's some great starting points that you know aren't from a fly-by-nite site:

kpfa radioshow archive
Try starting with the 911 Citizens Inquiry and The Big Wedding


WBAI radioshow archive
Historical JFK researcher's show. (Personal assistant to Bertrand Russell!) Enjoy the many titles and distribute widely.

And here's a little less established guy, though he does broadcast in Austin somewhere over actual airwaves:
Alex Jones et al
also look for his video channels presenting a great mix of
things over Shoutcast TV.. if you have Winamp installed, hit alt+L to pull up the Library selections, then click on Shoutcast TV or Internet TV

For the multimedia challenged, a couple plain ol websites that are reputable:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1122052jfk1.html
http://jfklancer.com
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Peace. and Justice.


ps. almost forgot, most impressive and germane to this thread is the 3-part interview in the above archive with
Joan Mellen, author of the recent and, interestingly, quite actively smeared book:

A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History

( Support your Local Independent bookseller!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.infowars.com/resources.html#ALREADY_PREPAIRED

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Controlled demolitions, remote-controlled planes, purposely sloppy police work to allow it to happen....you conspiracy people are NUTS!!!

Its a pretty atrocious massacre to conspire to allow and then have no one break the silence. But I guess auto body shops benefit from accidents so maybe they're conspiring to keep the roads unsafe?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is very possible that the events of 9/11 were the results of a conspiracy. But would it not simply be the "conspiracy" in which we are all implicit as American citizens ? "We," our country, seems to be conspiring against the rest of the world. Look at the damage done overseas. Before 1900, and even after. Our very presence in a country should be cause to panic. And, as American citizens, are we doing nothing to stop this inflicted abroad upon our peaceful neighbors ? Perhaps we are, we might be trying, but we are, up until this moment, unable to stop what is being done. Powerless, it would seem. Who's really in charge here ? Who is running the conspiracy ? I assure you it is not George W. Bush or any member of his cabinet. "You cannot have one foot in politics and the other in terror," wrongly asserts Condaleeza Rice. Yes you can: everyone is a terrorist nowadays, and voting for them at that ! If you pay taxes you're financing the terror machine ! If you drink Coke you're further padding the pockets of the terror-mongers. All the Americans are terrorists ! After all, a conspiracy is only a conspiracy as long as it remains unsubstantiated...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As far as I can tell JFK was targeted by Operation Mongoose (a CIA plan using mobsters and anti-Castro Cubans to kill Castro) after JFK cancelled the air cover for the Bay of Pigs in April 1961. Gen. Cabell, whose brother Earl was mayor of Dallas on 11/22/63, was furious. This group simply switched targets to JFK, who was considered far too left-wing by the Mongoose people. I have to research more on 9/11 before I'm ready to claim conspiracy or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. A record number of "put options" (bets that the price of a stock would drop) were placed just prior to 9-11 on American Airlines, United Airlines and Morgan Stanley (who leased 22 floors in the World Trade Center (WTC)). The CIA monitors stock trading in "real-time". Many of these "put options" have been traced back to the investment firm of A. B. Brown-Deutche Bank. No one can place trades anonymously, so why hasn't the CIA, FBI or the SEC investigated these transactions further and determined who purchased these put options? Who is this person and how did they have prior knowledge of the attacks?

2. Why didn't the 9-11 Commission mention the Air Force wargames on 9/11: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance and the fact that they drew most of the air defense away from the East Coast region on that day?

3. If the 9-11 Commission actually had been informed of the Able Danger project (tracking the terrorists, including Mohammed Atta) several times, why wasn't any of that covered in their report?

4. Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds gave three and a half hours of behind closed door testimony to the 9-11 Commission. Why did the Commission only write one sentence about her testimony (in a footnote) and why is she under a gag order not to talk about what she knows?

5. Why did President Bush tell the FBI to back off investigating both the Saudi government and the bin Laden family in early 2001?

6. In the first Congressional Report on 9-11, why were 28 pages covering the subject of Saudi Arabia and their ties to funding terrorist groups redacted from the final report?

7. There were multiple conflict of interest issues involving most (if not all) of the 9-11 Commission members. From their ties to the CIA, Saudi Arabia, and the Bush administration to investments in the oil industry. Why were no questions asked?

8. Why was President George W. Bush allowed to remain in the elementary school after Andrew Card whispered to him that the second WTC tower had been struck and that "America was under attack"? Why did Mr. Bush remain sitting in the classroom and continue to listen to children reading a book after he was informed? Why didn't he immediately leave to contact the Pentagon and direct NORAD to alert fighter jets to fly a protective perimeter over NYC and Washington and to intercept all hijacked airliners? Why were no fighter jets scrambled until about 90 minutes after the first plane (Flight 11) was identified as being hijacked?

9. Why didn't the Secret Service immediately take Mr. Bush out of danger to a safe place? If America was under attack and two planes had already crashed into the Twin Towers, why did the Secret Service feel the President was safe in a public school building? His trip to the Booker Elementary School was well publicized to the general public and media.

10. How was Flight 77 allowed to continue on it's course towards Washington DC while Vice President Dick Cheney sat in the President's Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) and was informed of it's direction and given reports about the plane being 50 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles out? The Pentagon is armed with anti-aircraft batteries surrounding the entire complex. Why were no defensive measures taken?

11. Why hasn't the Pentagon released any video of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon? A nearby Sheraton Hotel and a gas station had video that would have shown the area of the Pentagon that was struck. These videos were confiscated by the FBI shortly after the Pentagon was hit and have never been released. There are no photos of the wreckage of Flight 77 at the Pentagon to be found in any newspaper or media outlet. Doesn't that strike you as being odd?

12. What happened to all of the flight recorders of the four hijacked planes that day?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

13. Why did the 9-11 Commission completely refuse to explain the destruction of WTC building #7? How could FEMA's investigation of the destruction of WTC #7 result in their issuing a statement saying that "The collapse of WTC #7 remains unknown at this time?"

14. In the PBS documentary entitled "America Rebuilds", WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein admits on camera that they decided to "pull" (meaning "implode by controlled demolition") WTC building #7. WTC #7 only had isolated pockets of fire on floors 7-12. How can a 47 story building be set up to implode in a matter of a few hours? To perform a controlled demolition, this requires a complete structural analysis of the building and explosives must be placed at the lower girders and support column infrastructure.

15. If Flight 93 was brought down in a crash in Shanksville, PA by a struggle between the hijackers and passengers on board, how do they explain a debris field of wreckage that covered an area of between a 5 to 8 mile radius? Multi-ton aircraft engines don't bounce miles away from the site of the initial impact. Why was there no visible debris from the crashed airliner at the crash site?

16. Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers immediately loaded on to trucks and put on freighter ships to Asia to be melted down? This is a federal offense to remove material from a crime scene!

17. In an article in Fire Engineering magazine, Editor Bill Manning wrote that the investigation into the collapse of the Trade Towers was "a half-baked farce". He also mentioned that the removal of material from the crime scene "has to stop immediately".

18. Given the "official explanation" that the Twin Towers collapsed based on the "pancake theory", how could both towers collapse in 8.4 - 10 seconds (at free-fall speed)? If one floor was striking another floor beneath it, each floor would encounter resistance and slow down the collapse, and What about all of the eyewitnesses (survivors, fire fighters, policemen etc.) who recall hearing explosions going off right before the towers fell? There are ample amounts of video and audio to document this fact.

19. Isn't it odd that all three WTC buildings (1, 2 and 7) totally collapsed on that day? Never before (or since) in engineering history have steel structure high rise buildings completely collapsed due to fire. If fire could destroy a steel high rise office building, the government should fully investigate this shocking occurrence since every major city has high rise steel structure office buildings inhabited by millions upon millions of US citizens. I have not heard of such an investigation.

20. Why did President Bush only agree to answer questions from the 9-11 Commission if he was accompanied by Vice President Cheney? Why did they stipulate that no audio or video recordings be allowed in this interview? Also, no notes or transcripts of this event were allowed and both the President and the Vice President refused by testify "under oath".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If anyone reading this can add some details, please do. A few days after the 9/11 attacks there were at least two stories on the evening news (Brokaw and Jennings) about suspicious stock trades just before the attacks. Evidently someone had removed a great deal of money from airline stocks just before the attacks, and re-invested the money in other stocks that could reasonably be expected to increase in value after the attacks. The theory at the time was that al Queda had managed to not only carry out the attacks but had also found a way to finance other operations. The news stories said that the government was investigating this, but there was no follow-up.

Did I miss the follow-up, or did this story just disappear? We've known for years that the Bush administration had advance warnings about al Queda planning to attack airliners in the US. The memo on this was sent to Bush just a few weeks before 9/11. This is public knowledge now. Condi Rice has played down the signicance of this by saying that they had no knowledge of plans to fly planes into buildings, but that doesn't change the fact that people in the government KNEW that al Queda had plans to hit US airlines.

Remember Admiral Poindexter's aborted plan to start a terrorist prediction "stock market" among US intelligence analysts - the idea being to allow analysts to place bets on their predictions. I've often wondered if someone in our government knew that the airlines were going to suffer financial losses in the near future and decided to make some profit as a result.

Again, if anyone can provide details here, please do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many of you have commented on how the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate certain obvious problems with the events of 9/11.

The answer as to why they refuse to look at the material was best summed up by former President Gerald Ford when asked about his involvement on the Warren Commission. What he said was, and this is not verbatim, but from my memory, however I think fairly accurate, "We never said there wasn't a conspiracy, we just said we saw no evidence there was a conspiracy."

So, it's our job to keep shoving the evidence in their faces until they acknowledge it. Including people like Amy Goodman, Al Franken, Anderson Cooper, Larry King. Keep calling into their shows, make them confront the issue. That's our job folks!

-Dave Heller

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this book would try to explain that some mafia big man was so upset at bobby kennedy for being exiled from the US that he came back and prepared to kill him but had to kill JFK first.

the book fails to remember the world's number one mobster/assassin was also "exiled" from his birdsnest - in Langley. that was ALLEN DULLES. the top director of the CIA and architect of the then new CIA headquaters, which he was never to sit in as JFK fired him.

this book would have us think that DULLES took that willingly?
NO!
The mafia does not control this country. it may be used to control some of us, but it has always been the CIA, since DULLES, that has been the number one enforcer of covert operations which include assasinations and deposing of world leaders.

additionally, this book trys to explain that bobby kennedy HAD TO cover up the mafia hit because fidel castro might have found out that he was targetd for assassination by the US, and that, this book explains may have provoked WORLD WAR 3! Absurd. castro had already known about US assassination attempts. THE US SENT 1100+ INSURGENTS INTO HIS COUNTRY!! Guess what? NO WW3.

Thom Hartmann had better explain why he puts all the blame on the mafia better than what this book offers. perhaps this is why his name isnt on the book. but hartmann is claiming he collaborated to produce the book and is marketing it on his radio program. [...]

to add to the incredulousness of this book, see amazons book review which is where this comment is reprinted from.

the two reviews above mine are awarded 5 fkking gold stars! i received 1!

here are their reviews:
========================================

34 of 42 people found the following review helpful:

Initial reaction, November 21, 2005
Reviewer: Mr. Paul Byrne (UK) - See all my reviews

Will review later since only acquired my copy in the UK today. First glance has me salivating !!

From another extremely proud contributor ( Chicago and Tampa stories .

Paul Byrne,
Merseyside,
UK

second review:
41 of 46 people found the following review helpful:

I can't put this book down-fantastic, November 20, 2005
Reviewer: domino (Baltimore, MD) - See all my reviews
Waldron & Hartmann have hit a major, out-of-the-park home run here. Their book "Ultimate sacrifice" is amazing. Simply one of the finest books I have ever reaad on this subject. It is a joy to read-I can't put it down. I agree with the other reviewer. Get this anyhow, anyway you can.
=========================================

now, i ask you, are those reviews or is one an opinion and the other, NOT EVEN THAT!! ("i will review later...") (the second guy says he "agrees with the other reviewer." agrees with what?!)

so how could so many people benefit from such little info.

i am not being indignant, many other non-pleased reviews also received only one gold star while other vague reviews received 5 similar to my comparison above.

if this book is so good, why are the reviews so suspect?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truman, as Commander-in-Chief created a super secret intelligence organization in July of 1947. Short of a Presidential order to destroy it, it has all the power it needs to remain secret and to use all the power and resources of the executive branch to fulfill its purpose, the first of which is to remain secret, and do use whatever resources it needs to do whatever it considers necessary to protect the country. It alone must decide who has a need to know of its existence.

It organized JFK's asassination by bringing various disparete elements together, each of which had its own reasons for seeking the removal of JFK from the presidency. These groups did include organized crime, the FBI, VP Johnson, black ops of the CIA, using a CIA agent who was in a position where he would know of the conspiracy as the fall guy. Most of the same groups were involved in the RFK and MLK assassinations as well as the set-up of Nixon.

Each group involved has some of its own motives for being involved. However, the motive for the ultimate authorization by the group organizing the conspiracies varied from one assassination to the other.

JFK's many sins, such as deciding to reneg on killing Castro, to get rid of J. Edgar Hoover, to stop our involvement in Viet Nam, were only trifles compared with his insistence that he be shown all Executive Orders of past Presidents despite the decision of that group set up by Truman that JFK had no need to know what the U-2 plane really had been involved in.

Having been recruited into that organization from his military service that had given him access to knowledge of just what the U-2s were really doing, Oswald had been sent to Russia on a related task but brought back to deliver the death blow to Castro. Lee's well cultivated background as a communist sympathizer gave Oswald the cover her would have needed to get close enough to Castro to give him the fatal cigars. JFK's delays in finally authorizing Castro's assassination finally led to scrapping the assination of Castro by that method of death by throat cancer. But it also made Oswald the perfect patsy for killing Kennedy. That killing of JFK by a commie-sympathizer would raise the American people to demand the invasion of Cuba so that the Soviets could never again threaten the US. Our military and intelligence were intent on getting us into a war with the Soviet Union that they thought we could win--even if it turned nuclear.

Strangely, the basic reason for this assassintion will never be known until the real truth of Roswell and its aftermath is revealed. And there are now few of us alive who know the truth. When we have passed, the secret may be safe forever.

THEN WHY DO THEY NOT DO AWAY WITH US WHISTLE BLOWERS WHO NOW SPEAK FREELY OF THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE US? Because that would give veracity to our charges, even if we were victims of some strange accident or illness. The only way they can keep us being laughed off the pages of history as "conspiracy nuts" is to assure that we live happily ever after until we die of natural old age. Of course I tell the whole story in my Doppelganger Galaxy that will be published on my death. So for the sake of the Bush Dynasty, I suspect that if I die, it will appear perfectly natural.

What does all of this have to do with the Bushes? It all goes back to two young naval officers in WWII, one recruited to go underground after the war and Roswell, the other who, as a New Congressman, knew of Roswell from the first. But that starts a long story about the rise and fall of one dynasty and the rise and perpetuation of the other--all to carry on the purposes of the representatives of the military-industrial-technological and educational complex who took over the group Truman had set up to keep the truth of Roswell and subsequent negotiations and cover-ups total secrets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's what I think may have happened...Bush and his cronies received some vague information about possible hijackers and shrugged it off, laughed, and then told each other how if some terrorists did try to blow a bridge or building, boy, they could then go after them, attack Iraq, grab some of that Middle East oil, and it wouldn't be so bad after all.

So what if a few people died? Like good soldiers, they would've died a patriotic death to help the US secure her freedom. Freedom from the vagaries of pesky oil. .

Of course, they had no idea of the scope; nor did they know the date; and truth be told, since so many threats come across the president's desk, it was probably nothing.

So Bush did what he does best. Nothing.

And then 9/11 happened; and holy crap, all those people died, and Bush & Company felt personally responsible 'cause they'd been warned and had done nothing.

So they immediately went on the offensive to cover their tracks, demanding unparalleled power, and in the ultimate case of flip flopping, the administration projected their negligence onto the feeble Democrats,. The public fell for it 'cause everybody loves a hero, and after Bush's New York moment with his toy hat and toy bullhorn, the media couldn't help themselves, the story was just too poetic....

And darn it, it felt so good to win the elections in 2002; and so they rigged a few Diebold machines, you know, just to make sure they kept enough seats in Congress so they never had to go before a committee, under oath, and be pressured to disclose the truth of, 9/11. That America was attacked because the Bush administration was too lazy and filled with hubris to stop it.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sept. 10, 2001 Monday 7:15am

NPR has a story about how military bases have begun beefing up security for the first time in years. They say there is no specific reason but security had gotten 'slack' and it seemed like a good idea.

I can't find the transcript but as an army brat who lived on some of the bases mentioned, I listened and remembered well the next day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I suppose if I owned these two buildings and a threat were imminent that could perhaps topple two very tall buildings, not into their footprints, but onto the surrounding structures, I might pre-place an implosion worst-case scenario to bring the buildings down in a controlled fashion, for ostensibly, the greater good.

If that is the case, why doesn’t someone just say so? Otherwise this conspiracy will continue to grow and produce legions from hereafter that will continue to raise damning questions, with no concrete answers.

This story now consists of lies, prevarication, and outright bullshit, as written of in another column on Alternet. The bullshit factor harkens to the current tendencies of our leadership, and as such we should be calling them on it; nutty, and a seeming waste of time or not.

9/11 has given long legs to a presidency that was dead on the vine when it occurred. Until a great deal of the public is hit over the head with truth about the realities of the collapse of three buildings in a way that defies physics in a miraculous way, we cannot hope to counter the numerous fallacies that unfold daily with the leadership of this country.

The government managed to get rid of evidence in the collapse of three buildings in a timely manor, a manor in which the government is not accused of doing regularly. A firefighter is trained to preserve evidence in questionable fires. That should have been the case here, but was not. Since the items that could have given us the best forensic evidence of malfeasance are now a part of some larger molten mass in China, that ship has sailed.

It is time to focus on the characters of this nightmare and dig deeply into the money trail perhaps that may explain why these buildings were demolished, even if nothing more complex than an insurance scam, and an unwitting (unwitted, perhaps?) president and his Henny Penny response to the evils that lurk within the context of such unspeakable acts.

I was driving to work the morning this thing occurred. I continued to work and went about my day thinking about the calamity and worked my day. I had no real fear of terrorism then, I do now however. I am skeptical about everything my government now does. Was that the point?

The net effect for most is obvious; terror level alerts that ring hollow and are largely ignored by those that continue on their paths down the aisle at Walmart.

This single moment in our history has unleashed what appears to be the largest sham in the history of our country. One that threatens to undo the years of progress that put us on the map as a place to be, and a people to emulate.

Who will have that distinction in the future?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is not accurate to say that doubts about Oswald's involvement were dispelled when Gerald Posner's book, Case Closed came out in 1993. The book was promptly exposed as inaccurate, misleading, and biased by numerous JFK assassination experts.
So, for example, the dean of the critics, Harold Weisberg came out with Case Open, showing how Posner took a one sided view of the evidence in the case.
Peter Dale Scott noted the many errors of fact and analyis.
Further, the premier historian on this case, David R. Wrone, of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, was scathing in his attack on the Posner work.
Wrone notes that, "Massive numbers of factual errors suffuse the book." And, "Posner often presents the opposite of what the evidence says."
Wrone points out that "No credible evidence connects Oswald to the murder."
Wrone's review of Posner may be read here:
linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 9/11 Timeline at http://911truth.org and other sites, the one by Paul Thompson, is a must-read. THEN tell me you believe the official version holds a drop of water.

My mate picked up a discarded ROTC Air Force manual called The World In Transition, dated 2000. In the chapter "The Middle East In Transition" there's much info about the Islamic terror groups. All of them are there. Hezbollah. Hamas. Islamic Jihad. The Brotherhood, and a slew of them unfamiliar to me. Conspicuously and mighty threat to our way of life for years? And this wasn't COMPLETELY absent is the word "al-Qaeda/al-Qaida" ANYWHERE in the chapter. Or the entire book.

Osama bin Laden merited one sentence and was described as the rogue son of a wealthy Saudi family who acts alone or with a few assistants, and was implicated for the '93 bombing of the WTC. End of story.

Wait, wasn't bin Laden supposedly organizing this worth mentioning to the Air Force rookies? I would like to see the new version of this book which I am sure mentions Al-Q about 180 times.

It's really simple. Shrub is on first name terms with the bin Laden family, maybe he just contacted one of them. Got the message across he needed someone to, y'know, scare up a lil' scare, to kinda, well, motivate people to support a war against your competitors, I mean our enemy, Saddam Hussein. Think that's doable?

Someone somewhere gets paid a great deal of money or has some other favour done and Osama rounds up a few miscreants, sends them to flight school and starts acting uppity, gets the word out that Bojinka is on. ("Bojinka", the Indonesian word for "big bang", was the code-name for a plan discovered in 1994 headed by A. Yousef which resembled the 9/11 scenario.) It happens - but it turns out not to be a 'lil' scare' because someone had been loading up the towers with explosives and they collapsed instead of just getting hit by planes. Building 7 also collapses, hit by nothing at all. Building 7 with its CIA office. Convenient.

Here's another thing. ALL the news paraphernalia about the 9/11 event and the war in Afghanistan appeared on TV networks about an hour after the attacks, some say even sooner. I have produced video graphics and it takes longer than that to set this stuff up, even when you have teams of pros doing it. This was scripted in advance.

"Conspiracy theory" is the freshman course in questioning authority. Goal is widening your scope, consideriing unconsiderably outre' ideas as training, but it's not the meat of the program. The advanced course is "Transpiracy Research", which leaves behind the UFO crap and anything at all that lacks credible documentation. Transpiracy researchers tend to go straight to the government's data itself and get plenty of answers - or could, anyway, before the Juggernauteers caught on that FOIA and similar leakage was going to likely get them nailed.

Whether a missile was fired at the Pentagon and other such questions are actually irrelevant. What says far more is that B*sh could so easily put the whole question to rest by producing the confiscated evidence of which there is LOTS. I am hard-pressed to think of one single reason why 'national security' excuses the sunshine being allowed to shine on ANY 9/11 evidence, on the grounds that if this was truly a "war on terrorism" we have to know all we can of our enemy. Right?

What can possibly be gained in 2006 by STILL holding out besides a safe, unimpeached, unjailed B*sh? Yeah, immediately after it happened I could buy that national security chestnut, but now it's fishier than the wharf dock after the trawler boat dump the day's catch.

Motive, means and opportunity exist in spades...doesn't that mean someone should have a trial? Because by now, we know a lot more about what these deranged people are capable of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A few months before the attacks, a security company headed by Marvin Bush took over. They did shut down the buldings for "maintenance" on several weekends before the attacks. Forget where I read this-maybe David Ray Griffin's book? There was the opportunity to set charges.
Also, who told Willie Brown, then mayor of SF (and now with a show on our Air America affiliate in the Bay Area) not to fly on 9/11? That info came out at the time (he said he didn't know) and sank like a stone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

or is someone at Alternet engaged in more censorship than usual in the case of this article? I have noticed that at least four postings/comments have disappeared within about the last 24 hours. I always did have the impression that the Kennedy assassination was/is perhaps the most sensitive and touchy issue in American politics/history - within certain circles in U.S. society at any rate. Maybe this is confirmation of that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IS MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER A BANED NAME HERE????????
TRY READING: "FINAL JUDGEMENT"
LISTEN TO:

CURRENTISSUES.TV

IAMTHEWITNESS.COM

DON'T LIKE DAVID DUKE EITHER HUNH?
SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE HERE IS A CIA/HOMELAND SECURITY/MOSSAD DISINFORMATIONIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REPORTING TO "MOSSAD MIKE" SMIRNOFF!!
DO THE FEDS PAY YOU'ALL TO WRITE THIS IN D.C. OR DO YOU GET TO WORK AT HOME?
YOU ARE NOT DOING USEFUL WORK AND SHOULD NOT BE PAID!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bush administration’s justification for our preemptive invasion of Iraq and the continuing costly war is largely based on the official version of events of September 11, 2001.

Imagine the political implications if voters were to discover that fundamental portions of the official story were fabrications.

So far, the mainstream media and public have been unwilling to question the official version, but this may be changing.

A group of scholars, calling themselves Scholars for 9/11 Truth are now educating the public about fatal flaws in the administration’s story. Their web site is
Scholars for 9/11 truth

Dr. Steven Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, made a public presentation last week to over 300 persons. (The audio and slides are available through http://www.st911.org ).

Dr. Jones and other academics are calling for an independent scientific investigation of glaringly unsubstantiated or misleading aspects of the official “conspiracy theory”. One such example involves the belief that the 9/11 airplane hijackers were responsible for the complete collapse of the world trade center buildings, including World Trade Center building 7 that was never hit by an aircraft. (They believe that controlled demolitions using pre-placed explosives provide a much better explanation. This topic is highlighted at http://www.911truestory.com )

911TrueStory.com

I encourage you to take a fresh look at the evidence, and support an independent assessment of those events.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And yet it collapsed also in a similar fashion. Wazzup with that? Answer: Another conrolled demolition! It also fell at 5:30PM of the same day. WTC 7 is the lynchpin of the entire 9/11 Truth movement. Even offical reports ignore the building or omit credible explaination. Some have suggested that building held operations center for the day's events. Others have suggested that numerous government agencies had offices there with evidence that needed to be destroyed. My personal theory is that it was supposed to be hit by one of the airplanes, but something went wrong that day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the official explanation for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 - 'elasticated' steel causing catastrophic structural failure - is correct there should be consequences that are with us today. Specifically:
1) Clearly our pre-9/11 understanding of the structural integrity of tall steel-framed buildings was incorrect. Therefore to accommodate this new knowledge building regulations would have to be strengthened so as to prevent repetition. Every such existing building would require structural strengthening and every proposed new building of this type would require higher standards creating additional construction costs. If not, then clearly every single tall steel-framed building in the world is not safe. I am not aware that any such changes to the regulations have been made.
2) If the above is true, building insurer's actuarial tables will reflect the increased possibility of total collapse due to fire and insurance premiums would rise accordingly. Has this happened?
3) In an interview Frank A. DeMartini states that the engineering specifications for the towers allowed for a front-on collision of a fully-laden 707. Clearly they got their sums wrong, so why hasn't anyone sued the architects and engineers for heir negligence?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's think about this for a second, everyone here refuses to believe that the United States Government would sacrafice the lives of 2,000 Americans civilians for political gain, everyone refuses to believe that 9/11 was an instrument to bolster the Administrations sagging records, and justify, thsi monstrous creation known as the "War on Terror' a simple excuse to strip the American People of the rights leaving rights only to the incredibly powerful and wealthy. We refuse to believe this, yet let's look at the Holocaust, Six Million Jews murdered in Killing camps, let's take a look at the Armenian Genocide, or the Genocide in Rwanda, these are examples of people being sacraficed by Governments, it is possible Atrocities have existed in history that make 9/11 pale in comparison. Yet why is it that we refuse to believe our Governemnt the United States would engage willingly in something like this? well maybe is because we are in pure denial, we are putting the American Governemnt on a pedestal, thinking and believing there is no malice. Just remember where there is power there is malice. Anyone who holds any form of political power is capable of doing what ever is neccessary to retain power, in the words of Niccolo Macchievelli " The End Justifies the Means" applying this to 9/11 one can say that The invasion of Iraq, the retaining of Middle East Oil, the rise of the Christian right, the Rise of the Corporate Monsters, the destruction of the Middle class and the poor, in this country, and trampling on our civil rights, is the Justification for 9/11.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]