Class Is Now In Session

[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..

[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..

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?

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

[Gold9472]

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

Click Here

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. "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 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 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, but you may remember there were 28 pages redacted 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". Their efforts in Washington D.C. are originally what made me start to question what happened that day.

It took 441 days 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" to Mr. Kissinger.

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

Bush's next pick was Thomas Kean.

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. He served the 9th Congressional District of Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1965-1998.

He also "spearheaded" 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...

"...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.

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, 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".

The last person I want to mention is Senator Max Cleland. 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 to the "Independent 9/11 Commission". I had dinner 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 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 of course.

Considering nothing was mentioned in the report regarding Pakistan's involvement, it appears as though those allegation may be true.

The Commission's mandate was to provide a “full and complete accounting” 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".

Some of them are still fighting for the truth today.

The 9/11 Commission's full report is available 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, Kyle Hence, Michael Meacher, 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.