Class Is Now In Session

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". Tim Russert brings up a Dec. 23, 2003 Washington Post article titled "Another War on Shaky Territory". 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."
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Questions for Jon

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.
 
AndrewLoweWatson said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I think you meant..

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

Gold9472 said:
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
 
Goatfish said:
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. ;)
 
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

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 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, 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 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?

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.
 
Back
Top