Class Is Now In Session

[Gold9472]

Class Is Now In Session

Welcome to all serious newcomers who have questioned the events of 9/11, and never knew where to look for answers.

These classes are dedicated to all of you.

The lesson topics are:

American History And How It Relates To 9/11
Foreknowledge Of The Event
The 9/11 Commission
The Environmental Disaster
Everything That's Happened Since 9/11
The Scientific Theories Class
The first class will be taught by me, and it will take place on Friday, 3/31/2006 at 8pm EST.

The topic for the first class will be "American History And How It Relates To 9/11".

The format will be simple. I will make a few prepared remarks, and then you can ask whatever questions you like pertaining to the subject.

One simple rule. If you're not a serious student, you will be banned.

I look forward to seeing all of you here.

[Partridge]

Sorry to derail! But is there a full compilation video of ALL the CNN/Sheen coverage? Can you give me a link (for the Video section).

[Gold9472]

Sorry to derail! But is there a full compilation video of ALL the CNN/Sheen coverage? Can you give me a link (for the Video section).

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9190

[Partridge]

Excellent, ta!

[shadow7]

I really don't understand. NO ONE KNOWS what happened on 9/11, because there has been no investigation. The Kean Commission, formed a year after the events - and despite the reluctance of Bushco - was underfunded and limited in scope. They were NOT charged with investigating 9/11 - but with determining the intel failures and accepting the official version of events as given to us by the liars in the WH.

Wake up sheeple.....we've been had.

[joebordenrebel]

Thank sunny jaysus somebody has the balls to take this issue apart point by point. I think a good primer/video (is there a different video section to this lesson) can be had at:

http://www.bluecollarpolitics.com/

Where shall we start?

[Gold9472]

10 Minute Bell (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/bell.mp3)

[Gold9472]

American History And How It Relates To 9/11

Welcome one and all to the first of hopefully many online 9/11 truth classes. Each and every one of you who questions that day is a patriot in your own right.

Tonight's class is going to focus on "American History, and how it relates to 9/11".

My name is Jon Gold, but you can call me Jon or Gold. Both are acceptable. My father's name is "Mr. Gold".

Quite honestly, I don't know exactly how we're going to do this, but I do have a few ideas.

I figured I would tell you why American History is important in order to be able to see the truth about 9/11.

One of the biggest obstacles we face in the 9/11 Truth Movement is the idea that our Government would NEVER do such a thing. People have it embedded in their brains that no one in Government would ever kill their own people.

As you'll see, that simply is not the case.

Let's go back in time... to the 60's.... when drugs were acceptable, communism was on the rise, and rock and roll shaped a generation.

The date was March 13th, 1962. The Joint Chiefs Of Staff for President John F. Kennedy had an idea. The idea was called Operation Northwoods (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf).

This idea, titled, “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.

These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.

In other words, they were going to kill Americans to justify war with Cuba. Or, to put it bluntly, our Government is MORE than capable of killing it's own.

Luckily, President Kennedy refused this plan.

Would it surprise you to hear that the majority of wars the United States has partaken in took place under false pretenses?

Let this sink in. Read the document if you want. I'll give you 15 minutes or so if you want.

When you're ready, I would be happy to take any questions you may have.

[Joanne Wine]

wasnt there a bay of pigs...something about cuba?

[Gold9472]

wasnt there a bay of pigs...something about cuba?

This took place after the Bay of Pigs invasion. The Generals were still hungry for war...

Here's an excerpt from a thread we have here called, "The Bay Of Pigs Invasion (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3256)".

The Bay of Pigs Invasion (also known in Cuba as La Playa Girón after a beach in the Bay of Pigs where the landing took place) was a United States planned and funded landing by armed Cuban exiles on southern Cuba in an attempt to overthrow the Cuban socialist government of Fidel Castro in 1961. Castro's government had previously deposed the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista on New Year's Day, 1959.

[Gold9472]

For those of you who have a high speed connection, and feel like watching a good movie that talks about this, as well as the JFK assassination, watch this (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8704).

Essentially, it's a very good movie about the details of the JFK assassination. It also makes a very good case as to why George Herbert Walker Bush may have been behind the assassination.

[Gold9472]

That movie doesn't mention Northwoods I don't think, but it does discuss the Bay Of Pigs in great detail.

[Joanne Wine]

I remember now..something about not wanting communism in the western hemespere

[Gold9472]

I remember now..something about not wanting communism in the western hemespere

The 60's in general were a dangerous time. Do you remember the "Gulf Of Tonkin (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6740)" incident?

"Claims that North Vietnamese boats attacked two U. S. Navy destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964 — just two days after an initial assault on one of those ships — rallied Congress behind Johnson's build-up of the war. The so-called Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed three days later empowered him to take "all necessary steps" in the region and opened the way for large-scale commitment of U.S. forces."

"The parallels between the faulty intelligence on Tonkin Gulf and the manipulated intelligence used to justify the Iraq war make it all the more worthwhile to re-examine the events of August 1964 in light of new evidence"

[Gold9472]

NSA released documents that basically said the Gulf Of Tonkin incident never happened. This has been known by many for a long time, but the release of the documentation verified it.

[Gold9472]

Here is another article by the Sydney Morning Herald about the "Gulf Of Tonkin incident (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051106212304989)".

[Gold9472]

"President Lyndon Johnson cited the August 4 episode to persuade Congress in 1964 to authorise military action in Vietnam, despite doubts about the attack that arose almost immediately."

Sound familiar (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9198)?

[Joanne Wine]

"uncomfortable comparisons".....

[Gold9472]

"uncomfortable comparisons".....

What it shows is that history repeats itself. What we're experiencing now has happened before. The difference is, people are becoming tired of it, and thanks to things like the internet, we now have the ability to communicate with each other as never before.

[Gold9472]

However, this time, an attack DID happen, and 3000 people paid for it.

[Gold9472]

Ask yourself... if on 9/10/2001 the President told you he was going to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, what would you think?

[Gold9472]

Joanne has gone offline. Does anyone else have any questions?

[Gold9472]

As you can see, Bush wanted to go to war...

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=55180&postcount=2 (Memos/Minutes)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902057.html
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002236591
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9198 (New York Times)

[Gold9472]

Thanks to Partridge for the links.

[Gold9472]

Welp... I guess that's it for tonight's class... unless anyone has any questions. There is no such thing as a stupid question.

Also, this "class" never really ends.

[Gold9472]

Thanks to Joanne for participating. It gave me something to do. ;)

[Uber Commandante]

uh huh....yea....cuz you didni't have any other choices, right??

[Gold9472]

uh huh....yea....cuz you didni't have any other choices, right??

IN THE "CLASS" doomass...

[Gold9472]

See what I'm giving up for you class... an evening with Uber Dorkamandante.

[Simply_sexy]

Was I banned??

[Simply_sexy]

Can we create a class that I can teach? Sex 101 or something awesome like that?? I mean, what other topic goes hand-in-hand with politics????

[joebordenrebel]

So I have a question. I am an American who is willing to believe that our government is capable of hijacking and killing real citizens. I believe 9/11 ought to be investigated by a real independent commission. However, my pleas are mostly falling on deaf ears.

What is it about this subject that makes it sooooooooo taboo for a majority of Americans (Dims and Cons)?

[jschurchin]

Jon, Sorry I missed your class, I was working. If you can post when the next one is I will try to be here. Sorry man.

John

[jschurchin]

So I have a question. I am an American who is willing to believe that our government is capable of hijacking and killing real citizens. I believe 9/11 ought to be investigated by a real independent commission. However, my pleas are mostly falling on deaf ears.

What is it about this subject that makes it sooooooooo taboo for a majority of Americans (Dims and Cons)?

Most Americans will not believe it because it destroy's their belief in government.

Uncle Sam will take care of you, if you take care of it. Joe American living in suburbia with the wife and 3 kids cannot for a second believe his government would attack him. It destroys his American dream.

This is why it is an uphill battle.

[Partridge]

Maybe you should do a podcast focusing on each topic, Jon, then people can ask questions on it here... or something.

[Gold9472]

Maybe you should do a podcast focusing on each topic, Jon, then people can ask questions on it here... or something.

I'm afraid my sexy voice will be a distraction.

[joebordenrebel]

Most Americans will not believe it because it destroy's their belief in government.

Uncle Sam will take care of you, if you take care of it. Joe American living in suburbia with the wife and 3 kids cannot for a second believe his government would attack him. It destroys his American dream.

This is why it is an uphill battle.

With all due respect, whether they believe it or not is beside the point. They refuse to talk about it one way or the other. I'd love to have a conversation about it with someone who buys the whole story hook, line and sinker, but all I get is:

"Get over it."

"What are you, some kinda conspiracy-theory-wack-job-wingnut?"

"Kerry sucks too!"

"Why do you hate America?"

etc.

You can see how debating the issue is well nigh impossible when

[Gold9472]

"President Lyndon Johnson cited the August 4 episode to persuade Congress in 1964 to authorise military action in Vietnam, despite doubts about the attack that arose almost immediately."

Sound familiar (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9198)?

Sound even more familiar (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5964)?

[PhilosophyGenius]

How are you able to find old links so easily?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Can we create a class that I can teach? Sex 101 or something awesome like that?? I mean, what other topic goes hand-in-hand with politics????

Sex 101 in the XXX Topic area would be nice!

:222

[joebordenrebel]

The guy who made loose change has a nice web site, blog and forum for 9/11 skeptics.

If you haven't seen that film, you must watch it. Now.

Afterwards, check out his site:

http://www.loosechange911.com/

[Gold9472]

How are you able to find old links so easily?

Because I know what's on this board.

[Good Doctor HST]

At this time, I'm watching an interview on "Meet The Press" with Anthony Zinni, a retired general markedly against the Iraq War and author of a new book "The Battle For Peace" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403971749/sr=8-1/qid=1143989444/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6284881-7162364?%5Fencoding=UTF8). Tim Russert brings up a Dec. 23, 2003 Washington Post article titled "Another War on Shaky Territory" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22922-2003Dec22?language=printer). Here's an excerpt from the Post article I feel relevant to Jon's first class on 9/11.

"Even now, decades later, Vietnam remains a painful subject for him. 'I only went to the Wall once, and it was very difficult,' he says, talking about his sole visit to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the Mall. 'I was walking down past the names of my men,' he recalls. 'My buddies, my troops -- just walking down that Wall was hard, and I couldn't go back.'

Now he feels his nation -- and a new generation of his soldiers -- have been led down a similar path.

'Obviously there are differences' between Vietnam and Iraq, he says. 'Every situation is unique.' But in his bones, he feels the same chill. 'It feels the same. I hear the same things -- about [administration charges about] not telling the good news, about cooking up a rationale for getting into the war.' He sees both conflicts as beginning with deception by the U.S. government, drawing a parallel between how the Johnson administration handled the beginning of the Vietnam War and how the Bush administration touted the threat presented by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. 'I think the American people were conned into this,' he says. Referring to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the Johnson administration claimed that U.S. Navy ships had been subjected to an unprovoked attack by North Vietnam, he says, 'The Gulf of Tonkin and the case for WMD and terrorism is synonymous in my mind.'

Likewise, he says, the goal of transforming the Middle East by imposing democracy by force reminds him of the 'domino theory' in the 1960s that the United States had to win in Vietnam to prevent the rest of Southeast Asia from falling into communist hands."

[Gold9472]

Thanks.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Do you have any 9/11 speculations of your own, such as what happened to the real planes, or anything along those lines? Or do you not speculate?

[Gold9472]

Do you have any 9/11 speculations of your own, such as what happened to the real planes, or anything along those lines? Or do you not speculate?

I sure do.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6929

[AndrewLoweWatson]

Jon, if you've got a moment.

You know I'm 100% on board MIHOP. Unlikely to change. Just been looking at this archive:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/


What are we to make of this? It has heavy documentation of the cellphone calls from all four flights, but little about the events on ground after the towers were hit. Are the calls fake, do you think?

Also , it has a picture that I have never seen on any of the 911 truth sites of WCT7 from above , showing what is described as heavy fire damage to the lower floors and a hole 20 stories high. Is this true, or is the picture a fake?

Just puzzled.

[Gold9472]

Jon, if you've got a moment.

You know I'm 100% on board MIHOP. Unlikely to change. Jus been looking at this archive:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/


What are we to make of this? It has heavy documentation of the cellphone calls from all four flights, but little about the events on ground after the towers were hit. Are the calls fake, do you think?

Also , it has a picture that I have never seen on any of the 911 truth sites of WCT7 from above , showing what is described as heavy fire damage to the lower floors and a hole 20 stories high. Is this true, or is the picture a fake?

Just puzzled.

www.cooperativeresearch.org has probably all of the mainstream articles on 9/11... I don't exactly know how they decide what gets posted, and what doesn't. All I know is that they have been an invaluable tool for research. In regards to the WTC & the shot from above, and the hole in the side of the building... yes, I've seen that photo... a lot of people within the movement think the photo is a fake. I don't have an opinion. What I do know is that Larry Silverstein said nothing of it when he said...

(snagged from another thread...)

If you look at what Larry Silverstein said, and how he said it, he could ONLY be referring to controlled demolition.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

"telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire"

That means the firemen thought they weren't going to be able to contain the fire. If they couldn't contain the fire, then that means what? They were going to let it burn? That's not safe is it? Controlled Demolition is a way old fire companies used to make sure fires within cities didn't spread.

What I find interesting is that a small fire on two floors was beyond the FDNY's capability of extinguishing. Especially when you take into account exactly what was in those buildings. The Secret Service, the CIA, the SEC, Mayor Rudy Guiliani's emergency bunker, etc...

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Again, he couldn't be referring to letting the fire continue to burn. That's not safe.

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

He didn't say, "We pulled the firefighters out of there just in time because the building was about to collapse." or, "The firefighters informed me that the fire was going to bring down the building, and we should pull everyone out".

He said, "they made that decision to pull", period. "And we watched the building collapse", period.

[AndrewLoweWatson]

Thanks Jon,

I don't doubt that WCT7 was primed with explosives and 'pulled'. And I think that photo has an enhanced look.

About the chronology of the passengers' calls. If they are all fake, who was calling and from where? Was there an ops room ( inside WCT7?) with a team of actors reading from a script?

Sorry to ask these maybe obvious questions.

[Gold9472]

Andrew... there are a lot of things I don't know. One of them is whether or not ALL of the phone calls were fake, etc... or if anyone of them were... it makes sense, yes, that they were fake because of the impossibility of being able to make calls from a plane, but I don't KNOW that they were. Hence the call for a new investigation.

[Gold9472]

Incidentally... it is ok not to know the answer to something regarding 9/11.

[Gold9472]

The next class is this Saturday, 4/8/2006 at 8pm. The topic of the class will be, "Foreknowledge Of The Event"

Hope to see you all here.

[Goatfish]

4/5/06 is TODAY!! I'm thinking you meant 4/8/06. Not trying to be a weenie, I just wanted to clarify that you really mean this Saturday and not tonight..:hm:

[Gold9472]

Yes... sorry... looked at the Calendar, and saw today's date, and that's what I posted. No need to be mean about it. Geez.

[jetsetlemming]

Wow, you know Gold, I half expected you to defend your opinion that next Saturday is the fifth.

[Goatfish]

Yes... sorry... looked at the Calendar, and saw today's date, and that's what I posted. No need to be mean about it. Geez.

Wsan't trying to be mean, I just didn't know if you meant that the class would be tonight or on Saturday. Just wanted to make sure so I could be there to attend! :222

[Gold9472]

Wsan't trying to be mean, I just didn't know if you meant that the class would be tonight or on Saturday. Just wanted to make sure so I could be there to attend! :222

That was the only acceptable response. ;)

[Gold9472]

28 Minute Bell (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/bell.mp3)

[Gold9472]

Foreknowledge Of The Event

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Condoleezza Rice (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html)

One of the things we have learned during this administration's reign is that whatever they say, the opposite is usually the truth. "We abide by the law of the United States, that we do not torture." "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

How does this formula apply to 9/11? Well, if the Administration says that no one could have predicted what was going to happen, then chances are, they knew exactly what was going to happen.

As it turns out, that is most definitely the case. There are several pieces of information out there that not only indicate the United States Government was aware of such an attack, but they were aware of the time, and place. I will mention a VERY small portion.

Here is one of the MANY "warnings" that were not mentioned in the 9/11 Report. There is a massive list available at www.cooperativeresearch.org:

In late July 2001, Afghanistan's Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, "possibly from the intelligence services." Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of "warning fatigue" arising from too many terror warnings. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

The San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL) reported on 9/12/2001 in an article entitled, "Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel" that:

"he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel."

For those of you who don't know, Willie Brown and Condoleezza Rice are good friends.

In the September 13th issue of Newsweek (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1929&highlight=Targets), Michael Hirsh reported in an article entitled, "We've Hit The Targets":

"Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill."

Here's a good one. This is one of many reports about exercises our military conducts. On 9/18/2004, USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm) reported in an article entitled, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons", that:

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say."

There were also similar exercises like the ones mentioned in that article on 9/11. You can read about them here:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050830185334880

The importance of all of this information, and the COUNTLESS other pieces of information on this subject, to 9/11 Truth, is that it once again shows we were lied to.

I will be happy to take your questions now.

Also, do you think Condi is lying (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1933)?

For those who aren't on a high-speed connection, that's part of Condoleezza Rice's testimony during her public testimony at the 9/11 Commission Hearings.

You can read a transcript of it here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/).

[Gold9472]

I guess Saturday night's a bad night. :notetosel

[HodorEinstein]

Especially when it falls on the 5th.

[Gold9472]

Especially when it falls on the 5th.

The 8th... :confused:

[HodorEinstein]

I didn't know that Willie Brown and Kindasleeza were friends. Very interesting.

[Gold9472]

I didn't know that Willie Brown and Kindasleeza were friends. Very interesting.

Ya...

[Good Doctor HST]

I guess Saturday night's a bad night. :notetosel

I just got back from teaching people how to play poker. $50 to me!!:121:

[Gold9472]

I just got back from teaching people how to play poker. $50 to me!!:121:

Congratulations. We have a poker game don't we? Maybe you could grab that championship. You're one short on Curveball. :)

[Good Doctor HST]

To get back to your lesson, Willie Brown wasn't the only person warned about commercial flying in September. Who else is on that list of fortunates?

[Gold9472]

To get back to your lesson, Willie Brown wasn't the only person warned about commercial flying in September. Who else is on that list of fortunates?

John Ashcroft was listed... but he did address that question during the 9/11 Commission saying that he did fly commercially twice during the summer I think, however, I don't think he denied the warning. If that's the case, then he still received a warning specific to flying. What prompted them to warn him about flying?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Shit, that was a great piece written on the other page.

Anyways, since 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration, how do you figure that so many intelligence agencies from around the world found out about it to the point where they were warning the U.S. govnt about it? I mean, if I were the govnt, I'd try to keep this on the down low so that no nation would be like, "Hey Bush, al-Qaeda is planning big attacks on your country", through memos and then the Bush Admin would be taking serious heat for that afterwards. One possible explination would be that there are far more nations in the world that have achieved penetration of al-Qaeda than one could imagine...including the govnt of freakin Argentina!

Your thoughts...

[Gold9472]

Shit, that was a great piece written on the other page.

Anyways, since 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration, how do you figure that so many intelligence agencies from around the world found out about it to the point where they were warning the U.S. govnt about it? I mean, if I were the govnt, I'd try to keep this on the down low so that no nation would be like, "Hey Bush, al-Qaeda is planning big attacks on your country", through memos and then the Bush Admin would be taking serious heat for that afterwards. One possible explination would be that there are far more nations in the world that have achieved penetration of al-Qaeda than one could imagine, including the govnt or freakin Argentina!

Your thought...

I thought about this today, and I came up with twp possibilities.

1) "Al Qaeda", whatever the hell that means, a computer database, a "base", a group of people formally funded by the CIA/ISI, a group of people still funded by the CIA/ISI, Mossad, drug smugglers, or military personnel were somehow involved in the attack, and they planned it without knowing that the Administration knew, and the Administration planned Wargames, a stand down, etc... around the hijackings to ensure that the attack succeeded, or...

2) They planned it in conjunction with the Administration. If that's the case, maybe the "warnings" were leaked to "cover their asses" in the future. Maybe Osama Bin Laden was told to spread the word (which he did) prior to the attacks so that maybe the media somewhere would pick it up.

If there are any other possibilities that I didn't think of, please let me know.

[PhilosophyGenius]

1) al-Qaeda, from what I've seen in various documentaries, means "the base", or "base of Jihad", and was created by bin Laden and his mentor as a way to keep track of the fighters coming in and out of Afganistan-the CIA/ISI connections came later. As for the theory itself, I use to think that when you first explain shit to me, that after the neo-cons took power, they found out about the plot and made sure it was succesful. But the more I learned the less that made sense. Such as the fact that some of the hijackers are proven to be a live, some trained in U.S. military bases, some can't be accounted for in the U.S., ect...

2) The planning in conjunction theory also seems viable since bin Laden & Zawahiri have CIA ties, it's possible that they worked with the CIA on this attack not knowing they were doing so at the behest of the Bush Admin. I mean, if I were the leader of Hamas and had Mossad ties from back in the day, and they approached me of an operation to stage a massive attack in Israel, kill thousands of Jews, and me and Hamas would get the credit, your damn right I'd take it. All's I'd have to do is supply the suicide attackers and I would be able to go from killing a few people at a time to thousands, and I'd get the credit. Makes sense.

Also, been bin Laden has been quoted as saying "pray for your brothers" months before the attacks (possibly refrencing the Cole bombing) which shows he doesnt keep anything secret. Any one of the thousands who attend al-Qaeda trainning camps could have been a double agent.

[Gold9472]

1) al-Qaeda, from what I've seen in various documentaries, means "the base", or "base of Jihad", and was created by bin Laden and his mentor as a way to keep track of the fighters coming in and out of Afganistan-the CIA/ISI connections came later. As for the theory itself, I use to think that when you first explain shit to me, that after the neo-cons took power, they found out about the plot and made sure it was succesful. But the more I learned the less that made sense. Such as the fact that some of the hijackers are proven to be a live, some trained in U.S. military bases, some can't be accounted for in the U.S., ect...

2) The planning in conjunction theory also seems viable since bin Laden & Zawahiri have CIA ties, it's possible that they worked with the CIA on this attack not knowing they were doing so at the behest of the Bush Admin. I mean, if I were the leader of Hamas and had Mossad ties from back in the day, and they approached me of an operation to stage a massive attack in Israel, kill thousands of Jews, and me and Hamas would get the credit, your damn right I'd take it. All's I'd have to do is supply the suicide attackers and I would be able to go from killing a few people at a time to thousands, and I'd get the credit. Makes sense.

Also, been bin Laden has been quoted as saying "pray for your brothers" months before the attacks (possibly refrencing the Cole bombing) which shows he doesnt keep anything secret. Any one of the thousands who attend al-Qaeda trainning camps could have been a double agent.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3099

"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

Robin Cook, the former U.K. Foreign Secretary, now deceased, wrote that.

[Gold9472]

For review...

American History And How It Relates To 9/11

Welcome one and all to the first of hopefully many online 9/11 truth classes. Each and every one of you who questions that day is a patriot in your own right.

Tonight's class is going to focus on "American History, and how it relates to 9/11".

My name is Jon Gold, but you can call me Jon or Gold. Both are acceptable. My father's name is "Mr. Gold".

Quite honestly, I don't know exactly how we're going to do this, but I do have a few ideas.

I figured I would tell you why American History is important in order to be able to see the truth about 9/11.

One of the biggest obstacles we face in the 9/11 Truth Movement is the idea that our Government would NEVER do such a thing. People have it embedded in their brains that no one in Government would ever kill their own people.

As you'll see, that simply is not the case.

Let's go back in time... to the 60's.... when drugs were acceptable, communism was on the rise, and rock and roll shaped a generation.

The date was March 13th, 1962. The Joint Chiefs Of Staff for President John F. Kennedy had an idea. The idea was called Operation Northwoods (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf).

This idea, titled, “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.

These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.

In other words, they were going to kill Americans to justify war with Cuba. Or, to put it bluntly, our Government is MORE than capable of killing it's own.

Luckily, President Kennedy refused this plan.

Would it surprise you to hear that the majority of wars the United States has partaken in took place under false pretenses?

Let this sink in. Read the document if you want. I'll give you 15 minutes or so if you want.

When you're ready, I would be happy to take any questions you may have.

Foreknowledge Of The Event

[I]"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Condoleezza Rice (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html)

One of the things we have learned during this administration's reign is that whatever they say, the opposite is usually the truth. "We abide by the law of the United States, that we do not torture." "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

How does this formula apply to 9/11? Well, if the Administration says that no one could have predicted what was going to happen, then chances are, they knew exactly what was going to happen.

As it turns out, that is most definitely the case. There are several pieces of information out there that not only indicate the United States Government was aware of such an attack, but they were aware of the time, and place. I will mention a VERY small portion.

Here is one of the MANY "warnings" that were not mentioned in the 9/11 Report. There is a massive list available at www.cooperativeresearch.org:

In late July 2001, Afghanistan's Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, "possibly from the intelligence services." Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of "warning fatigue" arising from too many terror warnings. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

The San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL) reported on 9/12/2001 in an article entitled, "Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel" that:

"he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel."

For those of you who don't know, Willie Brown and Condoleezza Rice are good friends.

In the September 13th issue of Newsweek (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1929&highlight=Targets), Michael Hirsh reported in an article entitled, "We've Hit The Targets":

"Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill."

Here's a good one. This is one of many reports about exercises our military conducts. On 9/18/2004, USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm) reported in an article entitled, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons", that:

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say."

There were also similar exercises like the ones mentioned in that article on 9/11. You can read about them here:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050830185334880

The importance of all of this information, and the COUNTLESS other pieces of information on this subject, to 9/11 Truth, is that it once again shows we were lied to.

I will be happy to take your questions now.

Also, do you think Condi is lying (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1933)?

For those who aren't on a high-speed connection, that's part of Condoleezza Rice's testimony during her public testimony at the 9/11 Commission Hearings.

You can read a transcript of it here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/).

[Goatfish]

Shit, that was a great piece written on the other page.

Anyways, since 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration, how do you figure that so many intelligence agencies from around the world found out about it to the point where they were warning the U.S. govnt about it? I mean, if I were the govnt, I'd try to keep this on the down low so that no nation would be like, "Hey Bush, al-Qaeda is planning big attacks on your country", through memos and then the Bush Admin would be taking serious heat for that afterwards. One possible explination would be that there are far more nations in the world that have achieved penetration of al-Qaeda than one could imagine...including the govnt of freakin Argentina!

Your thoughts...

Two basic reasons, I believe. Info was planted out there by the 9/11 sponsors. This was a way to 'condition' the world, so that when the attack happened people could say, "ya see, there ya go". It would have seemed FAR more unusual if there were no mention whatsoever and then BANG! Very cunningly, it also aids the overall conspiracy, as it makes people scratch their heads saying, "but how could so many governments, intelligence agencies, and political people catch wind of an ominous plot unfolding and try to warn the US, if the whole thing really was an inside job, and the real 9/11 sponsors would seemingly want to remain as low profile as possible?"
Tada. Yet another monkeywrench thrown into the search for 9/11 truth, like the "pods" on the belly of the planes, and the whole vague ambiguity with what really happened at the Pentagon. It doesn't seem to make sense, but in another way, it does.
Take what happened with Oswald. He saw to it that he made a public example of himself, supporting Communism and Cuba. This conditioned the public to get used to Oswald as a commie. So when he was blamed for the JFK killing, it all seemed to fit nicely. JFK was done in by a commie, communism is taking over, we need to stop it wherever it exists around the world!! Gee, it all sounds familiar: a vague ominous threat (communism, terrorism) which forces us to spend bajillions on "defense", intervene in the affairs of so many other nations under the guise of staving off this "threat", and tricking people into accepting totally different political and social systems because of it. The tag names for this threat merely change, but the Cold War is still alive and well, with the US leading its way.

Another possibility about why so many foreigners were warning us is they also could be part of the conspiracy. They could possibly be additional Judith Millers, moles scattered around the world aiding the conspiracy by planting effective lies which help to buttress and corroborate the "official" version.
And as for Bush and anyone in his administration being afraid about any blowback afterwards, they apparently were confident enough that once the coup was carried out that they'd be able to ramrod through any kind of legislation which would take away our rights while providing themselves with more insulation from the public..exactly like they did! In fact, many people who utterly failed to do their jobs that day were promoted, while the only person still to date to be fired over 9/11 is Bill Maher. If that doesn't say it all as to what a complete joke the whole thing has been treated as..

[PhilosophyGenius]

What you just said Goatfish makes a lot of sense. As do the other 2 theories posted on this page 7 and this one. I liked that Oswald analogie a lot, and I never knew he was set up to be a commie. Intersting stuff.

[PhilosophyGenius]

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3099

"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

Robin Cook, the former U.K. Foreign Secretary, now deceased, wrote that.

From my understanding, based on documentaries and things I've read, bin Laden and his mentor went to the Jihad to help fight the Soviets by bringing in supplies and money. The name "al-Qaeda" was either bin Laden or his mentors idea as to keep track of the flow of fighters. The CIA involvment didn't come until later, and there only role was to help with the finances and the supply of weapons, particularly SAM's which helped turn the tied of the war. Not to sure about the ISI but all I know is that the Pakistani govn't from the start allowed all the Jihadists to roam freely across the boarder.

Forward to the mid 90's, when bin Laden opened up new camps in Afganistan, they didn't call themselves anything. After 9/11 the govnt refered to them as al-Qaeda because that was there old name- and obviously they just stuck with it. That's accroding to bin Laden in an interview with al-Jazeera.

[Goatfish]

What you just said Goatfish makes a lot of sense. As do the other 2 theories posted on this page 7 and this one. I liked that Oswald analogie a lot, and I never knew he was set up to be a commie. Intersting stuff.

Thanks once again! I'm glad if I'm providing any insight which is opening your mind to more possibilities. Yeah, Oswald was made to expose himself to an extreme degree, deliberately causing public scenes in order to gain exposure for himself. This allowed him to easily be publicly branded; the public had made up its mind about his image (or at least so they thought). This conditioned, or acclimated the public to accept a certain mentality, a way of thinking.
The same thing happened with recent terrorism. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have been blamed for the African embassy bombings and for the USS Cole bombing, and yet no hard evidence has been put forth to conclusively prove the claim. Yet because of those incidents, the public became used to some dude named bin Laden and his band of thugs, Al-Qaeda, running rampant all over the earth, hotheaded, fanatical, and out of control.
So when 9/11 rolled around (tada!) the federal government can simply point to bin Laden and the public says to itself, "of course". Wanna hear something funny? My girlfriend at the time told me that day, "it's fuckin bin Laden, I know it". Can you imagine if I said no it was the US government?! Bwahahahaha!!! Anyhow, where did she get that name from? From the "free" press which dictated to her that a certain dude named bin Laden bombed the USS Cole.
It appears that before a patsy can be brought into a false flag terror operation, a profile of him needs to be put out on the street. He or she can't just emerge from the shadows. A long trail of propaganda and staged incidents seems to be a requisite prelude.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Thanks once again! I'm glad if I'm providing any insight which is opening your mind to more possibilities. Yeah, Oswald was made to expose himself to an extreme degree, deliberately causing public scenes in order to gain exposure for himself. This allowed him to easily be publicly branded; the public had made up its mind about his image (or at least so they thought). This conditioned, or acclimated the public to accept a certain mentality, a way of thinking.
The same thing happened with recent terrorism. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have been blamed for the African embassy bombings and for the USS Cole bombing, and yet no hard evidence has been put forth to conclusively prove the claim. Yet because of those incidents, the public became used to some dude named bin Laden and his band of thugs, Al-Qaeda, running rampant all over the earth, hotheaded, fanatical, and out of control.
So when 9/11 rolled around (tada!) the federal government can simply point to bin Laden and the public says to itself, "of course". Wanna hear something funny? My girlfriend at the time told me that day, "it's fuckin bin Laden, I know it". Can you imagine if I said no it was the US government?! Bwahahahaha!!! Anyhow, where did she get that name from? From the "free" press which dictated to her that a certain dude named bin Laden bombed the USS Cole.
It appears that before a patsy can be brought into a false flag terror operation, a profile of him needs to be put out on the street. He or she can't just emerge from the shadows. A long trail of propaganda and staged incidents seems to be a requisite prelude.

Actually it's been proven without a doubt that al-Qaeda was behind the embassy bombings. One of the attackeres messed up and didn't die as he planned, and was later arrested (providing a link). Bin Laden also claimed responisbiliy.

[Goatfish]

Actually it's been proven without a doubt that al-Qaeda was behind the embassy bombings. One of the attackeres messed up and didn't die as he planned, and was later arrested (providing a link). Bin Laden also claimed responisbiliy.

Can you point me to the evidence? And do you mean that bin Laden "claimed" responsibility through audio or video provided by western governments (that is, those that stand to profit the most from a false flag attack)?
Bin Laden also "claimed" responsibility for 9/11 (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html)..or at least his double did!

[PhilosophyGenius]

Can you point me to the evidence? And do you mean that bin Laden "claimed" responsibility through audio or video provided by western governments (that is, those that stand to profit the most from a false flag attack)?
Bin Laden also "claimed" responsibility for 9/11 (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html)..or at least his double did!

The evidence is all over the net. A guy captured that day who was suppose to die in the attacks is also part of that evidence. And yeah I realize that bin Laden denied being behind 9/11 at first and many of the later videos are fake as hell.

[Gold9472]

Next class is 8/14/2006 at 8pm.

[Goatfish]

The evidence is all over the net. A guy captured that day who was suppose to die in the attacks is also part of that evidence. And yeah I realize that bin Laden denied being behind 9/11 at first and many of the later videos are fake as hell.

Nothing to do with you Philosopher, but I find it very strange that Al-Qaeda WAS responsible for the embassy bombings and yet was framed for every other attack after that. It seems wacky and inconsistent.
How do we know for certain that this guy who was caught was not a patsy also, maybe deliberately allowing himself to get caught so the frame up would be easy?
For instance, we've always been told that Timothy McVeigh was the mastermind behind the OK city bombing, but that has turned out not to be true. Just because he was caught at the scene does not automatically make him the one who engineered the incident.
Do you have any links I could check out?

[Goatfish]

Next class is 8/14/2006 at 8pm.

Jesus, not until August?! How are we going to make it all the way through 'til then? Not trying to be a buttmunch, I just want to make sure that you mean this Friday, 4/14, and not all the way in August.. :bowdown:

[PhilosophyGenius]

Jesus, not until August?! How are we going to make it all the way through 'til then? Not trying to be a buttmunch, I just want to make sure that you mean this Friday, 4/14, and not all the way in August.. :bowdown:

I think he's taking an early summer break.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Nothing to do with you Philosopher, but I find it very strange that Al-Qaeda WAS responsible for the embassy bombings and yet was framed for every other attack after that. It seems wacky and inconsistent.
How do we know for certain that this guy who was caught was not a patsy also, maybe deliberately allowing himself to get caught so the frame up would be easy?
For instance, we've always been told that Timothy McVeigh was the mastermind behind the OK city bombing, but that has turned out not to be true. Just because he was caught at the scene does not automatically make him the one who engineered the incident.
Do you have any links I could check out?

Unlike 9/11, every thing in this attack makes sense. All the pieces of the puzzle are there to indicate that al-Qaeda was behind this attacks. As far as on of the guys being a pasty, he wasn't. He threw grenades at the gaurdes to let the car bomber get in range of one of them embassies, things got messed up and he wasnt able to get in the car and he tried to run away. When the blast went off he was badly injured.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/embassy_bombing/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127475,00.html

[somebigguy]

Next class is 8/14/2006 at 8pm.
U R dumb.

[Gold9472]

God Damn it!

This Friday... on 4/14/2006, there will be another class, and it will be about the 9/11 Commission.

[reprehensor]

Jon, I am too busy on other projects to participate in your class, I just wanted you to let you know that I have transcribed all of the testimony pertinent to 9/11 from McKinney's Briefing last year and your Truthseeker Students can view it here;

The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later... A Citizen's Reponse - Did The Commission Get it Right? (http://www.gnn.tv/B12001)

For anyone new to all of this, a very good introduction to criticism of the Report and Commission Intel "recommendations".

[Gold9472]

1 Hour 18 Minute Bell (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/bell.mp3)

[Gold9472]

The 9/11 Commission
Formally known as the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"

Click Here (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/playing911card.mp3)

This took place on March 21st, 2006 at a rare Press Conference Bush gave in the White House Press room. Helen Thomas asked him a simple question.

"Why did you really want to go to war from the moment you stepped into the White House?"

This is a well documented fact (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2192). "It was all about finding a way to do it" says Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. Ron Suskind, a Wall Street Journal reporter, interviewed Paul O'Neill, and was told that's what it was all about in early 2001. Finding a "way" to invade Iraq.

Let's also not forget the drive of the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) to invade Iraq.

So why did the President lie to Helen?

Is it because if the President wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11, and the only way he could do so was by something like 9/11 happening, and then something like 9/11 DOES happen... Doesn't that make him a suspect?

Of course it does.

9/11 was a horrific event that murdered 1000's of people, but it was a crime. It was not an "act of war" like they claimed it to be. It was a murder on a massive scale.

Now, if he and his administration are a suspect in a crime, should they have the ability to pick and choose who and what gets investigated in that crime?

Of course not.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. One thing's for sure though, it wasn't investigated without a fight.

You would think the President, who swore to protect and defend America, and its' people, would want to know how and why something like 9/11 happened, and to hold anyone responsible, or incompetent in their duties, accountable.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. Instead, the President and his Administration fought tooth and nail for it not to be investigated, and instead of being held accountable, people were promoted.

When it was decided that the Congress would investigate the attacks, the President and Dick Cheney went to speak with Tom Daschle (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2628) privately, and asked him to "limit the scope" of the investigation.

Tom Daschle later said the reason for this request was because the Vice President "expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism."

Cheney also went to speak with both intelligence committee chairmen, Bob Graham, and Porter Goss.

"They were discussing how the inquiry would proceed, including what would be made public, what would remain classified, and how broad the probe would be."

Just so you know... weeks before the 9/11 attacks...

"Senator Bob Graham (D), Representative Porter Goss (R), and Senator Jon Kyl (R) travel to Pakistan and meet with President Pervez Musharraf. They reportedly discuss various security issues, including the possible extradition of bin Laden. They also meet with Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. Zaeef apparently tells them that the Taliban wants to solve the issue of bin Laden through negotiations with the US. Pakistan says it wants to stay out of the bin Laden issue. [Agence France-Presse, 9/28/2001; Salon, 10/14/2001]"

Then, on the morning of September 11th, in Washington D.C., the following took place...

"At the time of the attacks, ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham (D) and Representative Porter Goss (R) (Goss is a 10-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine operations wing). The meeting is said to last at least until the second plane hits the WTC. [Washington Post, 6/18/2002] Graham and Goss later co-head the joint House-Senate investigation into the 9/11 attacks, which has made headlines for saying there was no “smoking gun” of Bush knowledge before 9/11. [Washington Post, 8/11/2002] Note that Senator Graham should have been aware of a report made to his staff the previous month (see Early August 2001) that one of Mahmood’s subordinates had told a US undercover agent that the WTC would be destroyed. Evidence suggests that attendee Mahmood ordered that $100,000 be sent to hijacker Mohamed Atta. Also present at the meeting were Senator Jon Kyl (R) and the Pakistani ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi. (All or virtually all of the people in this meeting had previously met in Pakistan just a few weeks earlier.) Senator Graham says of the meeting: “We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan.” The New York Times reports that bin Laden was specifically discussed. [New York Times, 7/3/2002; Salon, 10/14/2001; Vero Beach Press Journal, 10/12/2001]"

The Congressional Inquiry was released (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf), but you may remember there were 28 pages redacted (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html) pages in it. Some have speculated that the redacted pages pertained to Saudi Arabia's possible involvement in the attacks.

Sound suspicious? It gets better.

Keep in mind, everything I just mentioned was in regard to the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, not the "9/11 Commission". I thought it was important for you to know the full history of the "investigation" into 9/11.

As I said earlier, the Bush Administration fought tooth and nail for 9/11 not to be investigated. Eventually, family members started asking questions, and were demanding answers. A group of women formally known as the "Jersey Girls" started what they called the, "Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission (http://911independentcommission.org/index.html)". Their efforts in Washington D.C. are originally what made me start to question what happened that day.

It took 441 days (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3133) for Washington D.C., and the Bush Administration to appoint an "Independent Commission" to investigate the attacks of 9/11.

If someone you loved was murdered, would you like it if the police waited 441 days to investigate the murder, or would you want them to get started right away?

When they decided to create the commission, the Bush Administration wanted Henry Kissinger to be the Chairman. Henry Kissinger has a LONG and sordid history, but aside from that, when the "Jersey Girls" learned he was Bush's pick, they questioned Mr. Kissinger on his business dealings. That was a "no-no (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/)" to Mr. Kissinger.

After all, we're trying to create an "Independent" commission aren't we?

Bush's next pick was Thomas Kean (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9513).

A reported by Truthout.org...

"Kean is also a director for the petroleum giant Amerada Hess, the food services corporation Amarak, and the Pepsi Bottling Group. Kean is likewise a board member of the Fiduciary Trust Company International. He is a former board member for the CIT Group and United Health Group.

It is his association with Hess that has drawn concern from 9/11 victims groups, because Hess has business agreements with Saudi Arabia and oil exploration facilities in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Not so "Independent" for a Chairman eh? Wait'll ya hear about the Co-Chairman.

Lee Hamilton has been around Washington D.C. for years (http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/overview/political_papers/hamilton.shtml). He served the 9th Congressional District of Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1965-1998.

He also "spearheaded (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/25/Columns/Iran_Contra_players_r.shtml)" the Iran Contra Congressional Investigation.

You remember that don't you? The same group of individuals who are in power now, are the same group of individuals who were in power then.

Anyway, back to Hamilton (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/bushcontra.htm)...

"...former Congressman Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House select committee investigating the Iran-contra affair, was shown ample evidence against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, but he did not probe their wrongdoing. Why did Hamilton choose not to investigate? In a late 1980s interview aired on PBS 'Frontline,' Hamilton said that he did not think it would have been 'good for the country' to put the public through another impeachment trial. In Lee Hamilton's view, it was better to keep the public in the dark than to bring to light another Watergate, with all the implied ramifications."

Oh I see... they wanted someone KNOWN to coverup information to co-chair the commission.

There are other conflicts of interest regarding other members of the Commission. You can read about them here (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=226).

Now, we get to my FAVORITE part. Not only was the window dressing filled with conflicts of interest, but the one who was actually in charge of the investigation was a MEMBER of the Bush Administration.

Philip Zelikow. Executive Director of the "Independent" 9/11 Commission.

The "Jersey Girls" insisted that he resign (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/zelikowresign.mov), but they were denied.

Bryan Sacks wrote a GREAT article filled with links, and videos called, "Philip Zelikow: The Bush Administration Investigates The Bush Administration (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051128144916707)".

The last person I want to mention is Senator Max Cleland (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9023). The man who fought in Vietnam, and lost 3 of his limbs.

He was originally appointed to the Commission, but low and behold...

"Cleland attacked his own commission after the other members cut a deal to accept highly limited access to CIA reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the Bush administration. "This is a scam," Cleland said. "It's disgusting. America is being cheated."


"As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."

The "Jersey Girls" submitted a list of questions (http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html) to the "Independent 9/11 Commission". I had dinner (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8668) with Mr. Bob McIlvaine recently, and he told me the commission answered only 2 of these questions. I've heard other accounts that maybe a few more were answered, but I don't know the exact amount. The fact is, barely ANY of them were touched on in the commission's final report. He also told me that Commissioner Ben Veniste told him that the Commission itself was an "exposition".

Remember the allegation of a $100,000 wire transfer from Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad of the Pakistani ISI to Mohammad Atta? That was one of their questions to the commission.

Thomas Kean was recently confronted (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9369) on that wire transfer, and said he "wasn't aware" of any wire transfer.

Just so you know, Pakistan has recently been accused of bribing 9/11 Commission officials. Pakistan allegedly wanted all information pertaining to their involvement in the attacks to be omitted from the commission's report. Pakistan denied it (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9484) of course.

Considering nothing was mentioned in the report regarding Pakistan's involvement (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html), it appears as though those allegation may be true.

The Commission's mandate was to provide a “full and complete accounting (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4302)” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.

I've shown you just a VERY small amount of information that wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 Commission's report.

The "Jersey Girls" referred to the 9/11 Commission's report as a "Hollow Failure (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3792)".

Some of them are still fighting for the truth (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9518) today.

The 9/11 Commission's full report is available (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf) online for everyone to read. Given what we know about the attacks today, I present it to you as evidence against the Bush Administration for the attacks of September 11th.

The attacks were never investigated. Considering everything that's taking place today is happening because of 9/11, I suggest we do, and I suggest we follow the trail, WHEREEVER IT MAY LEAD.

I will be happy to take your questions.

I'll give you a while to read this and take it in... brb, going to get some coffee...

Thanks to www.cooperativeresearch.org (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/), Kyle Hence (http://www.911citizenswatch.org/), Michael Meacher (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8476), Mr. McIlvaine, and to the "Jersey Girls" for at least trying to do what's right, and for showing me just a few can make a difference.

[Gold9472]

I'm assuming no one's going to participate tonight... shame.

[Goatfish]

I'm assuming no one's going to participate tonight... shame.

Don't worry Jon, I'm here and ready to rock! The only problem is I'm pretty un-schooled when it comes to the 9/11 Warren Commission. All I know is they changed just about every facet of the event in order for it to fit their conspiracy theory.
So, where shall we begin? I'm all ears! :)

[Gold9472]

Don't worry Jon, I'm here and ready to rock! The only problem is I'm pretty un-schooled when it comes to the 9/11 Warren Commission. All I know is they changed just about every facet of the event in order for it to fit their conspiracy theory.
So, where shall we begin? I'm all ears! :)

Well... think about everything you know about 9/11 that wasn't mentioned in the final report. Pieces of information that, when analyzed, can only point in one direction. The Wargames that were taking place on that day, and Wargames that have taken place in the past, Sibel Edmonds, David Schippers, the foreknowledge, MASCAL, Pakistan's involvement, Saudi Arabia's possible involvement, the PNAC, etc...

None of that, and a lot more was left out of the report.

Knowing what you know today, do you think the commission gave a "Full And Complete" accounting of the events of 9/11?

[Gold9472]

Think about the "Tunnel Vision" this commission had. They were told Osama Bin Laden did it, and they set out to prove just that. Unfortunately, certain things happened that day that would NEVER have been able to happen without direct involvement on the part of the Government, specifically the Bush Administration.

[Goatfish]

I simply haven't had the patience to go over the Kean-Hamilton Commission's report. It would feel insulting, considering that probably 99% of it is bullshit.
I had read that there is no mention AT ALL of WTC7 and anything having to do with it. Do you know if this is true? That seems very damning in itself, especially when you take into account revelations like this (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm).
And not mentioning all those flight exercises, especially when they most likely greatly contributed to a failure of air defense, is another zinger. And having the FAA destroy evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html?ex=1399262400&en=3473eb2aa7591d4e&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND) doesn't help either.
Also, appointing one of the biggest war criminals in recent times, Henry Kissinger, was very telling as to how seriously the Bush admninistration was taking any investigation into the matter.

What I find amazing is they were able to stall an investigation into a mass murder for more than a year. And these losers claim they don't have enough time to investigate AND fight the "war on terra", and yet STILL take month long vacations.
You'd think that just by opposing and investigation and stonewalling it, destroying a lot of important forensic evidence, needlessly classifying just about all the rest of it, and then trying to shame anyone who inquired into the matter would be enough to make everyone suspicious..

[Gold9472]

I simply haven't had the patience to go over the Kean-Hamilton Commission's report. It would feel insulting, considering that probably 99% of it is bullshit.

You should at least familiarize yourself with it. Just a suggestion.

I had read that there is no mention AT ALL of WTC7 and anything having to do with it. Do you know if this is true? That seems very damning in itself, especially when you take into account revelations like this (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm).

No mention... if you click on the mandate link in the class, you'll hear Lee Hamilton confronted on that very issue.

And not mentioning all those flight exercises, especially when they most likely greatly contributed to a failure of air defense, is another zinger. And having the FAA destroy evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html?ex=1399262400&en=3473eb2aa7591d4e&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND) doesn't help either.

Yep, for the life of me, I can't figure out what was on those tapes. I wish someone would talk to the person who did it.

Also, appointing one of the biggest war criminals in recent times, Henry Kissinger, was very telling as to how seriously the Bush admninistration was taking any investigation into the matter.

There are a few movies about Henry Kissinger in the YBBS Video Collection.

What I find amazing is they were able to stall an investigation into a mass murder for more than a year. And these losers claim they don't have enough time to investigate AND fight the "war on terra", and yet STILL take month long vacations.

That's but one of MANY hypocricies regarding this Administration. We're in the "War On Terror", and collaborating with Mujahedeen at the same time.

You'd think that just by opposing and investigation and stonewalling it, destroying a lot of important forensic evidence, needlessly classifying just about all the rest of it, and then trying to shame anyone who inquired into the matter would be enough to make everyone suspicious..

I wish that was the case...

[Goatfish]

Think about the "Tunnel Vision" this commission had. They were told Osama Bin Laden did it, and they set out to prove just that. Unfortunately, certain things happened that day that would NEVER have been able to happen without direct involvement on the part of the Government, specifically the Bush Administration.

That's a hard one for many to realize, but terrorists simply would not have been capable of carrying out 9/11. The cooperation and coordination which would have had to be organized on so many levels precludes Al-QaQa as a suspect. Only a highly organized, multi-agency operation could have pulled off 9/11. If the flight exercises weren't carried out, probably not even the 1st plane would have reached its target, and definitely not any of the planes after that (especially the Pentagon plane! Gimme a goddamn break!).
From what I have read in this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0930852311/sr=8-1/qid=1145065131/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4634613-0143363?%5Fencoding=UTF8), Richard Clarke was the VERY first person to mention Al-Qaeda as the likely culprits. If this is true, this means he has been a mole all along. What's amazing is they still have yet to tell any of us WHY they think it was Al-Qaeda..

[Gold9472]

That's a hard one for many to realize, but terrorists simply would not have been capable of carrying out 9/11. The cooperation and coordination which would have had to be organized on so many levels precludes Al-QaQa as a suspect. Only a highly organized, multi-agency operation could have pulled off 9/11. If the flight exercises weren't carried out, probably not even the 1st plane would have reached its target, and definitely not any of the planes after that (especially the Pentagon plane! Gimme a goddamn break!).
From what I have read in this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0930852311/sr=8-1/qid=1145065131/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4634613-0143363?%5Fencoding=UTF8), Richard Clarke was the VERY first person to mention Al-Qaeda as the likely culprits. If this is true, this means he has been a mole all along. What's amazing is they still have yet to tell any of us WHY they think it was Al-Qaeda..

Actually, George Tenet said, "You know, this has bin Laden’s fingerprints all over it. (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56249&postcount=13)" before the second plane hit. Amazing.

[Goatfish]

..going to start with this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565847/qid=1145065414/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4634613-0143363?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), which will probably be a much better way to familiarize myself with it. This way the author will start of by saying what the report said, and then he'll throw his own comments in about the various discrepancies and ommissions.
It's obvious why those FAA tapes were destroyed. A big problem NORAD was having covering its ass was that the FAA had an almost completely different timeline regarding the planes (that is, the FAA had the real version which clearly refuted NORAD's bullshit story). Destroying the tapes helped to sell the coverup, because now there was no way to refute NORAD's account with actual evidence.
I'm currently reading George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0930852923/qid=1145065690/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-4634613-0143363?s=books&v=glance&n=283155). It documents a ton of war crimes committed by Bush, Kissinger, and many other players. I'd recommend reading it, but you definitely need a strong stomach to get through it. I'm about half way through the book, and there have been so many huge despicable crimes mentioned that it really makes me want to vomit..

[Gold9472]

..going to start with this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565847/qid=1145065414/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4634613-0143363?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), which will probably be a much better way to familiarize myself with it. This way the author will start of by saying what the report said, and then he'll throw his own comments in about the various discrepancies and ommissions.
It's obvious why those FAA tapes were destroyed. A big problem NORAD was having covering its ass was that the FAA had an almost completely different timeline regarding the planes (that is, the FAA had the real version which clearly refuted NORAD's bullshit story). Destroying the tapes helped to sell the coverup, because now there was no way to refute NORAD's account with actual evidence.
I'm currently reading George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0930852923/qid=1145065690/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-4634613-0143363?s=books&v=glance&n=283155). It documents a ton of war crimes committed by Bush, Kissinger, and many other players. I'd recommend reading it, but you definitely need a strong stomach to get through it. I'm about half way through the book, and there have been so many huge despicable crimes mentioned that it really makes me want to vomit..

I've heard it mentioned many times. You might be right about the tapes... but I still wanna talk to the person who did it.

[Gold9472]

And yes, I recommend Dr. Griffin's book for everyone.

[Goatfish]

Real terrorists would never both with something as fancy as 9/11. Conventional weapons and warfare would do the trick just fine, and cost a lot less, and be much much easier to carry out.
If I wanted to bring a city to its knees, I'd hire a few thousand guys, arm them to the teeth, and then unleash them all at once all over a city. I would tell them to kill and destroy as much as they could. And I would layer one attack on top of another. A few days after I launched one attack, I'd do it all over again. There really would be no way to stop this, save shutting down the entire city (which accomplishes the objective anyway).

Oh, another juicy tidbit not mentioned in the 9/11 report is the call Bush got on his air force one phone. Talk about pointing to the real sponsors! There is just NO WAY bin Patsy and Al-QaQa could get access to that. And whoever called him even knew the secret code name for the plane (angel).

[Gold9472]

Real terrorists would never both with something as fancy as 9/11. Conventional weapons and warfare would do the trick just fine, and cost a lot less, and be much much easier to carry out.
If I wanted to bring a city to its knees, I'd hire a few thousand guys, arm them to the teeth, and then unleash them all at once all over a city. I would tell them to kill and destroy as much as they could. And I would layer one attack on top of another. A few days after I launched one attack, I'd do it all over again. There really would be no way to stop this, save shutting down the entire city (which accomplishes the objective anyway).

Oh, another juicy tidbit not mentioned in the 9/11 report is the call Bush got on his air force one phone. Talk about pointing to the real sponsors! There is just NO WAY bin Patsy and Al-QaQa could get access to that. And whoever called him even knew the secret code name for the plane (angel).

I saw someone talking about that today, and it's actually something I wasn't aware of, or if I was, I'd forgotten about it.

[Goatfish]

I've heard it mentioned many times. You might be right about the tapes... but I still wanna talk to the person who did it.

I DO know that their accounts were almost totally different. It is my opinion that NORAD got the FAA to destroy the evidence in order to make the conspiracy fit more snugly..

[Gold9472]

I DO know that their accounts were almost totally different. It is my opinion that NORAD got the FAA to destroy the evidence in order to make the conspiracy fit more snugly..

No... I know they were different accounts... there were a total of three different accounts... I want to see that person answer questions in a trial.

[Goatfish]

No... I know they were different accounts... there were a total of three different accounts... I want to see that person answer questions in a trial.

I think that'll happen once we get Bush and Cheney to publicly answer questions seperately under oath concerning 9/11.. :(

[Gold9472]

I think that'll happen once we get Bush and Cheney to publicly answer questions seperately under oath concerning 9/11.. :(

The 9/11 Trials as I like to call them.

[Goatfish]

..when and how did you learn about 9/11? Was it right after the attacks, years later? What was it that first tipped you off?

[Gold9472]

..when and how did you learn about 9/11? Was it right after the attacks, years later? What was it that first tipped you off?

I mentioned that briefly in the "Class"... on the day of, I made mention of the ridiculousness of the Pentagon being hit, but I didn't think it was the Government. For a long time, I depended on Fox News to tell me what was going on. When the Bush Administration started to oppose investigating it, and when the Jersey Girls started to get media coverage, that's when I started to follow what was going on...

[Goatfish]

There are currently 10 people viewing the Truther forum, and yet we're the only two in here. What gives?
Is there a way to summon these other people?

[Gold9472]

There are currently 10 people viewing the Truther forum, and yet we're the only two in here. What gives?
Is there a way to summon these other people?

They're lurkers... that's ok. Let them read, and let them learn.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Sorry I'm late for class, I made Parmesian Chicken for the first time and I dont think all the chicken was cooked if you know what I'm sayin.:hurryup:

It tasted like shit by the way and I'm never making it again.

[PhilosophyGenius]

-From knowledge gained through this site, I'm under the impression that the reason the 9/11 Commision is so distorted is because the head of the commision is Bush's home boy and being in that position he determined when the panel saw or didn't see.

-Also, I'm sure who mentioned this but a 9/11 Truther talked about how it appeared that the entire report was written by just one person based on the writting style. I would add to that that all the Senators and so forth were just brought in to give the commission credibility and also it would make the Senators look good. All they had to do was just sign off on it and they would look like they did something incredible.

Comments...

[Goatfish]

Sorry I'm late for class, I made Parmesian Chicken for the first time and I dont think all the chicken was cooked if you know what I'm sayin.:hurryup:

It tasted like shit by the way and I'm never making it again.

How did you prepare it? I can help you out, if you'd like..

[PhilosophyGenius]

How did you prepare it? I can help you out, if you'd like..

One side was semi burned when I was pan frying it and the other side wasn't fully cooked (I think). Taste like shit so it doesnt matter. I'm sticking to spaggetti.

Dont forget to read my post above.

[Goatfish]

-From knowledge gained through this site, I'm under the impression that the reason the 9/11 Commision is so distorted is because the head of the commision is Bush's home boy and being in that position he determined when the panel saw or didn't see.

-Also, I'm sure who mentioned this but a 9/11 Truther talked about how it appeared that the entire report was written by just one person based on the writting style. I would add to that that all the Senators and so forth were just brought in to give the commission credibility and also it would make the Senators look good. All they had to do was just sign off on it and they would look like they did something incredible.

Comments...

It seems the same as with the "Patriot" Act. A big bulky document was suddenly handed to Congress and they immediately passed it without a moment's thought. I'd actually be more surprised if all those Senators actually DID read the final report..

[PhilosophyGenius]

It seems the same as with the "Patriot" Act. A big bulky document was suddenly handed to Congress and they immediately passed it without a moment's thought. I'd actually be more surprised if all those Senators actually DID read the final report..

The Patriot Act is a perfect example. And yeah I agree, if I'm a senator why would I bother to even read that giant book when everyone already knows the story? Just show up, sign the damn thing, and come off looking good on tv. And problalby collect a nice pay check as well.

[Gold9472]

Thanks for everyone's participation. I'm going to bed. Nite.

[Goatfish]

One side was semi burned when I was pan frying it and the other side wasn't fully cooked (I think). Taste like shit so it doesnt matter. I'm sticking to spaggetti.

Dont forget to read my post above.

Always cook things on low flame. That way you can always increase the heat if it's not cooking fast enough. And if it burned, then the oil ran out, it was cooked without remaining oil, which left the chicken without a medium to keep cooking in. So then it wound up sticking to the pan, and getting all yucky, and burnt, and turned into a piece of tough canvas.
The trick is to either deep fry the cutlets, or bake them in the oven (with an oiled up baking dish). Once it's halfway cooked, then add the sauce, and a little later, the shredded parmesan cheese.
The idea is to mostly cook the chicken in its own medium, and then after it's mostly cooked, put it in a pan and add the sauce, and then the cheese.
So basically, almost fully cook the chicken, then cokk it with some sauce, and then for the last two to four minutes, add the cheese..

[Gold9472]

Definitely a conversation that could be taken into another thread.

[Goatfish]

Definitely a conversation that could be taken into another thread.

I thought you had hit the sack! You stalker you!
Yeah, sorry about the detour advice. Cooking chicken parm and 9/11 definitely don't make a real meal..

[Goatfish]

"In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say."

WHY did they think it was unrealistic? Because they all knew damn well that a plane would never get the chance to get near the Pentagon. Here is indirect proof that some kind of standdown MUST have been issued.

[Gold9472]

"In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say."

WHY did they think it was unrealistic? Because they all knew damn well that a plane would never get the chance to get near the Pentagon. Here is indirect proof that some kind of standdown MUST have been issued.

;)

[Goatfish]

It's funny, when I read that a few years back it slapped me upside the head. I said to myself, "here we have officials ADMITTING that a Pentagon strike is not even possible!" And they were so positive about their assumption that they didn't even bother taking a plane strike against the Pentagon into consideration.
I guess that story about Cheney barking at that little piker that "the order still stands" really probably is true..

[Gold9472]

It's funny, when I read that a few years back it slapped me upside the head. I said to myself, "here we have officials ADMITTING that a Pentagon strike is not even possible!" And they were so positive about their assumption that they didn't even bother taking a plane strike against the Pentagon into consideration.
I guess that story about Cheney barking at that little piker that "the order still stands" really probably is true..

Norman Mineta Is Key

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

How can Dick Cheney be monitoring Flight 77 for 50 miles from the PEOC? The 9/11 Report says he didn't get there until 9:58am. The Pentagon was hit at 9:37 according to the 9/11 Report.

Now you know why Norman Mineta's testimony was omitted from the 9/11 Report.

They re-wrote history to suit their needs.

The best accounts have Cheney at the PEOC by 9:10am.

On 9/13/2001, during Richard B. Myers confirmation hearings for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he stated that the order to scramble took place "after the Pentagon was struck." So obviously the order Dick Cheney was referring to was not a scramble order, but a stand down order. The reason it took an hour and 45 minutes to scramble a plane, and the reason why the "young man" kept running in and out. Would he need to run in and out if the order was to shoot down the plane? No, he would have received that order, and awaited confirmation of the shoot down to report back to Cheney.

Keep in mind, on 9/11/2001, the responsibility for scrambling planes fell under the secretary of Defense.

CJCSI 3610.01A

Actual Document
Click Here (http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/3610_01a.pdf)

As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.

Fry issued CJCSI 3610.01A for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

[Gold9472]

"On 9/13/2001, during Richard B. Myers confirmation hearings for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he stated that the order to scramble took place "after the Pentagon was struck." So obviously the order Dick Cheney was referring to was not a scramble order, but a stand down order. The reason it took an hour and 45 minutes to scramble a plane, and the reason why the "young man" kept running in and out. Would he need to run in and out if the order was to shoot down the plane? No, he would have received that order, and awaited confirmation of the shoot down to report back to Cheney."

[Gold9472]

Norman Mineta's Omitted And Covered Up 9/11 Commission Testimony

Click Here (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/hamilton_win.wmv)

[Goatfish]

"The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders."

This was a seriously wicked coup that Rummy carried out. Rummy saw to it that he was a ghost as well on 9/11. I believe he was brunching with someone in the Pentagon, knowing that a plane was headed in that direction. Nothing fishy there. This was of course KEY to letting the planes fly around at their leisure. If the military was able to auto-respond, like they had been able to before this last minute change, those planes would have all been taken out, even most likely Flt. 11. Ain't it funny and so damn coincidental that this order was handed down just 3 months before 9/11? Reminds me of Silverstein buying out the WTC complex in July (just 2 months before) and taking out that juicy insurance policy.
It still utterly boggles my mind how he is allowed to collect on the insurance money for WTC7 when there is footage of him publicly admitting to deliberately destroying his own property..

:BS-Flag:

[PhilosophyGenius]

Just a suggestion, but can the next class be about flight 93 or flight 77? Perhaps both? I'd love that to be discussed.

[Ignatius Riley]

Yo PG,

I posted this on another thread. It is something of a timeline. Don't think Gold particularly approves of it, but you might be able to get him to admit that important information is contained in it.

Timeline by Team8plus.org ( http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/Radar.htm ):


7: 59 Flight 11 takes off from Logan airport
8:14 United Airlines Flight 175 takes off from Logan airport
8:14 Hijacking of Flight 11 apparently begins. It may have been a staged hijacking or part of a terror drill.
8:21 Flight 11 switches off its transponder at the edge of an area that just happens to have no primary radar coverage. Two "drone" flights (remote controlled plane bombs) fly in from this no-radar zone and creep into the radar shadow above Flight 11. These drone flights may have been using Operation Vigilant Guardian as additional cover. Operation Vigilant Guardian was a huge military exercise taking place that week featuring Russian planes flying over the Arctic Circle to attack America. Meanwhile, Flight 11 begins to reduce its altitude.
8:27 Flight 11 appears to turn very close to Schenectady county airport. What really happens is that Flight 11 flies down towards the Mohawk river valley towards Griffiss Air Base (6) and the two drones, still flying in formation, continue down the Hudson river towards New York City.
Flight 11 either lands at Griffiss Air Base (home of NEADS (http://www.neads.ang.af.mil/), the North Eastern base for NORAD) or flies on to be shot down or destroyed over the great lakes.
8:39-8:43 At this point, Drone Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 come very close together. The remaining drone peels off from formation to rendezvous with Flight 175 over Stewart International airport.
8:46:40 Flight 11(drone) crashes into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
8:42 Just before the crash, Flight 93 is taking off from Newark, around 42 minutes late.
8:47 Flight 175 switches off its transponder, right at the same time that Flight 93 makes a little unexplained detour to meet it. Both these planes are in the same place at the same time and Flight 175 disappears. Coincidence? No, Flight 175 flies West in Flight 93's radar shadow. Flight 175 goes on to land, possibly at Cleveland or Pittsburgh airport under cover of diversion. 8:51 Flight 175 deviates from its assigned cruising altitude.
(Time not available) Air traffic controllers spot an "intruder over Allentown" (Washington Post, Sept 17th 2001 (http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/wpost091701.html)). This is a plane flying with an unidentified transponder code and is later assumed to be Flight 175.
9:03 It is, in fact, a drone flight that goes on to crash into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
9:41 Flight 93, also in the midst of a staged hijacking or terror drill turns off its transponder and drops down low. A drone plane flying in through another hole in the primary radar coverage slips in to take its place on the radar.
10:03 Just before it is shot down, flight 93 is approaching Johnstown Airport. Coincidentally there was a meeting of the Local Emergency Planning Agency (LEPA) in the control tower of Johnstown Airport the day before (See The Johnstown "Terror Team" Cover-up (http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1094)). Was this plane supposed to be part of a terrorist attack drill? The drone, a white unmarked plane, is seen by numerous witnesses circling the crash site. Its presence is never properly explained
8:20 Flight 77 takes off from Dulles Airport (Washington D.C.)
8:39 Flight 77 makes a small detour to the north in an area with no primary radar coverage. At this point it meets the drone, which has flown down from the north through an area with no radar coverage.
8:51 Flight 77 makes its last radio contact. 8:56 It then switches off its transponder and disappears from ATC radar scopes. This is due to the fact that the radar tracking it at the time is a "Secondary only" radar site that depends on responses from the plane's transponder to give a location for the plane. The plane also turns at the weak centre-point between the two primary radars.
9:07 The Flytecomm video (http://irvingshapiro.tripod.com/cgi-bin/Flight_93/crashother.avi) shows Flight 77 reappearing again and flying onwards to the west. The presence of this plane was confirmed by Col. Alan Scott at the 2nd hearing of the Commission (9-11 commission hearing, 23rd May 2003 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm)). It still appears to be in the air after 10:00.
(Time not available) Once again the plane exploits vulnerabilities in the radar coverage to avoid being shot down as it enters restricted D.C. air space. Dulles controllers raise the alarm that an unidentified plane is approaching Washington at about 9:29 (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2), Nov 3, 2001)
9:37 The official time that Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon
Notice the precision timing involved. We frequently see two or more events happening at the same time, like a magician distracting the audience.

8:14 Flight 11 is hijacked; Flight 175 takes off.
8:39 Flight 11 and Flight 175 nearly meet; Flight 77 deviates from its path.
8:46/47 Flight 11 crashes; Flights 175 and 93 meet each other
8:51 Flight 77 makes last radio contact; Flight 175 deviates from its assigned altitude
...

What happened to the passengers?

Now the tricky part, if plane swapping took place, what happened to the real planes and the passengers? Unfortunately this is where we currently have to resort to educated speculation.

In Operation Northwoods we saw the original "plane swapping" scenario. In this case, the military planners at the pentagon were confident that they could fabricate passengers by creating non-existent IDs for the people on the plane. They were also noticeably confident that no-one would blow the whistle.

However, you can be sure that the 9-11 passengers are not on a desert island somewhere.

Perhaps a number of planes were shot down that day. This is where you get "layers within layers" of the cover-up. Picture this fictional officer speaking: "Listen guys, we accidentally shot down another plane that was conducting an emergency drill today. What really hit the North Tower was a jet that the hijackers chartered from Schenectady County Airport. You understand that the public don't need to know about this, right?"

There are many other possibilities, perhaps the passengers were killed before the plane landed at some remote location.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Word up Riley!

I'm not sure if you read Crosing the Rubicon or not but Ruppert floats around that same theory of the real planes being diverted into the war games and the pilots shoting them down thinking they were drones. But as I was thinking about that long time ago, the wreckage would be a real headache to clean up, especially if it was in the ocean.

And thanks for the timeline.

[Ignatius Riley]

Coincidentally, I started the Rubicon last night. Yeah, I agree. It seems like shootdowns of multiple planes would have been detected insofar as they were shot down over land and not somewhere over the Atlantic. Weren't you the one who posted mention of a certain war game in which passenger planes were shot down over the Atlantic?

Anywho, it seems easier to adopt the theory that the passengers of the planes wherein the staged hijackings occurred arrived at their destinations dead.

:: Remote controlled plane hits turbulance. Oxygen masks drop down. Voice over speaker, "Okay folks, this is your captain speaking. These guys have allowed me to address you all because it seems we have hit some turbulance and, well, I want to make sure we all land safely so we can negotiate with these guys and all get home alive. That being the case, its time, if you have not already, to grab the oxygen mask suspended in front of you ..."

The moles of course do not partake in "oxygen" and or finish off those who don't at a later point. The plane touches down with a load of dead bodies that must be emptied. The plane remains in use from that point forward which would explain why it took years for the planes to be taken off of offical lists.

And if that doesn't work, the theory arises that the people were landed somewhere, hell Guantanamo would work, or some abandoned military base on some island somewhere or even in mainland America. The passengers are led into a defunct gymnasium or cafeteria where they are served "refreshments." The ones that don't drink the poison are shot in the head.

Who knows.

All I know is evidence is mounting supporting theories that involve switcheroos with drones.

[Gold9472]

"All I know is evidence is mounting supporting theories that involve switcheroos with drones."

I don't agree.

[Ignatius Riley]

"All I know is evidence is mounting supporting theories that involve switcheroos with drones."

I don't agree.

Gold, a man of few words.

What don't you agree with? That it is all I know? Or that evidence is mounting blah blah blah?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Skip to the last chapter of Rubicon and Ruppert explains what he think really went down on 9/11 and in detail of how it was done. And yeah, he talks about how one of the wargames prior to 9/11 invovled the shoot-down of a passenger plane over the Atlantic on the basis that there was a killer virus on board and the plane must not land at all costs (something along those lines).

[Ignatius Riley]

I look forward to reading the whole thing. I read a coupla chapters off the net a month or so back. Great stuff. I wish From the Wilderness was free and not a subscription site.

[Gold9472]

Gold, a man of few words.

What don't you agree with? That it is all I know? Or that evidence is mounting blah blah blah?

It's a theory... I don't agree with it... it just seems illogical to me to switch the planes as opposed to using the real ones. Also, it's another one of those things we don't know the answers to. It's time to stop talking about what we THINK happened, and to start making THEM tell us what happened.

[PhilosophyGenius]

It's time to stop talking about what we THINK happened, and to start making THEM tell us what happened.

Great quote.

:994949:

[Ignatius Riley]

Gold is a true patriot. In the vein of Sam Adams. I got your back, Gold.

[PhilosophyGenius]

That quote...


It's time to stop talking about what we THINK happened, and to start making THEM tell us what happened.

should be used plastered on the top right side of this website in place of the Mark Twain quote if you ask me.

[Ignatius Riley]

But how are we going to MAKE anybody do anything? How many are there of us? Of the 295+ million Americans, how many are on our side? Are there a solid million who know 911 was an inside job? Less?

What is our strategy?

Because we've got a time limit, folks. Several scenarios could easily pan out in the future, including but not limited to a military coup here, the invasion of Iran and/or exchanges of nukes with Russia, which, frankly could lead to global nuclear holocaust. I personally feel like we've got to get the truth out before, not after, any of the aforementioned horrors occur.

Hey PG, wanna play chess online? go to redhotpawn.com and look me up, I'm Al Camus.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Hey PG, wanna play chess online? go to redhotpawn.com and look me up, I'm Al Camus.

Fo sho! I'll holla at you about that tommorow or something after I download the necessary components off that site and set my shit up. And I like Al Camus, he's the famous author right? My user name would problably be on the opposite end of the spectrum like Ben Dover or something .

[Gold9472]

I thought of a new way to approach Condoleezza Rice's "predicted" comment.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Anyone ever predict a transponder being turned off?

Anyone ever predict a plane going off course?

Anyone ever predict a plane being hijacked?

Anyone ever predict a plane crashing?

Anyone ever predict a plane crashing into a building?

We know they have predicted these scenarios, and have created procedures in which to deal with them.

Why were none of them followed on 9/11?

People generally try to find examples of planes being flown into the WTC, or the Pentagon.

So on 9/11... the people in charge of protecting America's skies knew in advance that these planes were going to be flown into buildings, and because no one could POSSIBLY have predicted such a scenario, they had absolutely no idea what to do?

I think not. They knew what to do. Something else prevented them from doing it.

[Ignatius Riley]

I thought of a new way to approach Condoleezza Rice's "predicted" comment.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Anyone ever predict a transponder being turned off?

Anyone ever predict a plane going off course?

Anyone ever predict a plane being hijacked?

Anyone ever predict a plane crashing?

Anyone ever predict a plane crashing into a building?

We know they have predicted these scenarios, and have created procedures in which to deal with them.

Why were none of them followed on 9/11?

People generally try to find examples of planes being flown into the WTC, or the Pentagon.

So on 9/11... the people in charge of protecting America's skies knew in advance that these planes were going to be flown into buildings, and because no one could POSSIBLY have predicted such a scenario, they had absolutely no idea what to do?

I think not. They knew what to do. Something else prevented them from doing it.

The various military games occuring that or around that day created something of a smokescreen so that honest people trying to react vigilantly to what the radar's were telling them could be easily satiated by being told to "stand down and not interfere with military exercises" the details of which are confidential.

Gold, something has happened to America that is terrifying. "Rugged individualism" is dead. It has been replaced by "communal thinking," wherein group think is the standard, the norm, and any critical thinking is shunned as unAmerican. What I am saying is that people are easily placated by the PR machine of our gov't. They are conditioned to accept the crap the gov't feeds us and do so. Probably has something to do with how the primary lesson of our schools is not ones in math or physics or geology, but in cowering to authority. The lesson is take orders from strangers who don't know or care about you, from supposed authorities, and to fulfill those orders without questioning or even thinking about it. Complete the assignment and move on to the next, that is the lesson. The fruits of those lessons is when Condi Rice stands in front of the country, rolls her eyes, and says, "it was a failure of imagination because we couldn't imagine that terrorists could attack us the way they did," the people accept this response, as opposed to screaming "BULLSHIT" and tarring and feathering her mole ass and running her out of town on a rail.

Because we are a country of cowards and lemmings the future holds one of two fates for us, and soon.

1) Military coup that overthrows our government. Our new leaders, Army generals perhaps, express contrition to Russia, Germany, France and much of the Mideast and we spend a few years sanctioned if not occupied before the global economy collapses when the world finally runs out of oil. Starvation follows.

2) Global nuclear holocaust. Russia is not going to allow us to take Iran. If we were to invade Iran w/o exchaning nukes with Russia, Russia would fight a clandestine war against us there by arming rebel insurgents until our already broken, stretched past capacity, Army is routed. The cabal knows this and would probably attempt a "preemptive strike" against Russia before or while or in combination Israel's invasion of Iran, which will employ hundreds of thousands of American Army soldiers. Russia knows this and is prepared to answer immediately. Once we deploy nukes so will everyone else who has nukes: Pakistan, India, France, Germany, Brittain, Russia, China, et al and we all die!

Am I wrong?

[PhilosophyGenius]

when Condi Rice stands in front of the country, rolls her eyes, and says, "it was a failure of imagination because we couldn't imagine that terrorists could attack us the way they did," the people accept this response, as opposed to screaming "BULLSHIT" and tarring and feathering her mole ass

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

Regarding both of your points, I think they're both a little extreme, especially the first one. I do believe your second point has some legitimacy to it as I think a Cold War II esq conflict is upon us. However I think the only nuclear powers in the world actually crazy enough to use it is our own. So if a nuke were to be used within the coming years, only 1 would be used, and it would be ours.

[aussie patriot]

Firstly a big hello to you all from the land downunder,

You guys in the states are lucky in the respect that you have many people who question the bollocks that is the 9/11 "official story" and some that are willing to publicly debate and make documentaries about their findings, ie Alex Jones.
But living here in Australia people are so blind to 9/11 and what really happened. I have had many arguments with idiots who are unwilling to do a bit of research and check out the facts for themselves. I even had a co worker accuse me of fabricating a story when i said to him about World Trade Centre 7, he claimed that i made up the whole story and that it never collapsed ???
What i find the most concerning is people who are willing to trade every last bit of their freedoms just so the uncaring government can make them "feel safe" and believe me people in Australia have already allowed the government to disarm us (i will post about the questions concerning the port arthur massacre another time), put RFID chips on government issued welfare cards and they have also rushed in laws similar to the US patriot act so Australia is a nation that is happily asleep and it would be good to meet up with some fellow aussies to start spreading the truth about 9/11.

[BASE701]

It would be nice if you'd start class again. I have a thousand questions.

[Gold9472]

As much as I'm here to answer your questions, it is also good practice to do your own research. I will give you a few hints...

1. Who benefitted from 9/11?
2. Who had the power to make 9/11 happen?
3. Are either connected?

[AuGmENTor]

Hey gold, the guy said he had questions... Not that he wanted to BE asked questions! You drunk or somethin? (hehe)

[Gold9472]

Hey gold, the guy said he had questions... Not that he wanted to BE asked questions! You drunk or somethin? (hehe)

My point was... you should learn the material.

[AuGmENTor]

Hello Base. Just read all of this thread, and all of the 911 truther forum, and you'll have all of your answers. There are also vids you can watch that are a bit easier on the eyes. It can be a bit overwhelming to take it all in. You can watch the vids over and over, and balance that with reading the materials mentioned by Gold. Beyond that, if you have something specific, ask away.

[BASE701]

Hello Base. Just read all of this thread, and all of the 911 truther forum, and you'll have all of your answers. There are also vids you can watch that are a bit easier on the eyes. It can be a bit overwhelming to take it all in. You can watch the vids over and over, and balance that with reading the materials mentioned by Gold. Beyond that, if you have something specific, ask away.Hello friend. I've spent about five hours a night for the last month watching video and reading. I was a bit overwhelmed at first but its getting easier.

My questions are more about the nuts and bolts of the operation. Probably questions that could only be answered through theory at this point, now that I think about it.

It sure is nice to be able to talk about it, without someone questioning my sanity though.

[AuGmENTor]

It sure is nice to be able to talk about it, without someone questioning my sanity though.

Heh, that sure is the truth. You will find people that will test you diplomatic abilities right to their limit. Two people became so inflamed that they screamed at me, and no longer talk to me at all. I couldn't believe that over my beliefs they were willing to go to these lengths. But in all fairness, the discussions had gotten pretty heated. When someone keeps getting stopped cold and held to the facts, they get really upset. I've only found good people in this BB. You'll see.

[werther]

I would say the best books to read are:

1. synthetic terror. webster tarpley
2. new pearl harbour. david ray griffin
3. 9/11 commission report, ommisions and distortions. david ray griffin

best videos
1. press for truth
2. any lectures given by the above authors

learn about:
1. Norman Mineta
2. Sibel Edmonds

-only my opinion

I think I now retain quite a bit of information regarding the subject at hand but always find myself not knowing details, i.e. what time did each plane take off etc.. Such details are quite important when formulating an intelligent argument.

[BASE701]

Heh, that sure is the truth. You will find people that will test you diplomatic abilities right to their limit. Two people became so inflamed that they screamed at me, and no longer talk to me at all. I couldn't believe that over my beliefs they were willing to go to these lengths. But in all fairness, the discussions had gotten pretty heated. When someone keeps getting stopped cold and held to the facts, they get really upset. I've only found good people in this BB. You'll see.I've met nothing but good people here so far. And yeah, one of the guys I work with has just about stopped talking to me!:)

[BASE701]

I would say the best books to read are:

1. synthetic terror. webster tarpley
2. new pearl harbour. david ray griffin
3. 9/11 commission report, ommisions and distortions. david ray griffin

best videos
1. press for truth
2. any lectures given by the above authors

learn about:
1. Norman Mineta
2. Sibel Edmonds

-only my opinion

I think I now retain quite a bit of information regarding the subject at hand but always find myself not knowing details, i.e. what time did each plane take off etc.. Such details are quite important when formulating an intelligent argument.Thanks! I've seen Press for Truth. Great movie.
I am planning on reading A new Pearl Harbor soon.

Thanks again for the input.

[Gold9472]

Thanks! I've seen Press for Truth. Great movie.
I am planning on reading A new Pearl Harbor soon.

Thanks again for the input.

How long have you been interested about 9/11?

[BASE701]

How long have you been interested about 9/11?About a month now. I watched a video of wtc7, and have been looking for answers ever since. It's funny, I knew the building fell that day, but never really paid attention. I guess like most folks, I was in total shock.

I've been a conservative my entire life, so you can imagine what I would have thought about all of this only a month ago.

[Gold9472]

About a month now. I watched a video of wtc7, and have been looking for answers ever since. It's funny, I knew the building fell that day, but never really paid attention. I guess like most folks, I was in total shock.

I've been a conservative my entire life, so you can imagine what I would have thought about all of this only a month ago.

Well thanks for showing interest... if you have any questions that aren't scientific related, feel free to ask me. If you have scientific questions, someone else will have to pick up the slack.

[BASE701]

Well thanks for showing interest... if you have any questions that aren't scientific related, feel free to ask me. If you have scientific questions, someone else will have to pick up the slack.I've learned so much from this site already. Like I've told others, it's just nice to come here and not be treated like I'm insane. Like Dr. Griffin said..."Once you learn the truth, there is no going back". I may have slightly misquoted him there.

Thanks for this site.

[Gold9472]

I've learned so much from this site already. Like I've told others, it's just nice to come here and not be treated like I'm insane. Like Dr. Griffin said..."Once you learn the truth, there is no going back". I may have slightly misquoted him there.

Thanks for this site.

Have you ever been to www.cooperativeresearch.org?

[BASE701]

Have you ever been to www.cooperativeresearch.org? (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org?)I have not. I will check it out and get back to you in a few....

[BASE701]

A wealth of info. Thank you for the link.

[Gold9472]

A wealth of info. Thank you for the link.

That's the site of Paul Thompson. The gentelman part of the film, "9/11: Press For Truth" was based on. All mainstream sources.

[AuGmENTor]

Have you ever been to www.cooperativeresearch.org? (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org?)You never gave ME that link.... (*sniff sniff sob*) I thought we had something special Jon Gold! hehe

[Gold9472]

You never gave ME that link.... (*sniff sniff sob*) I thought we had something special Jon Gold! hehe

Sorry. Maybe if you looked in the "archives (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/archive/index.php/f-14.html)", you would have seen it.

[AuGmENTor]

Blech, thats to many words! My eyes are in the front of my head so a can look forward. Quit livin in the past, MANNNNNNNN! Besides, with you postin 80 times a day, it's all I can do to keep up with THAT, let alone lookin at archival material!