Holes in MIHOP

[Ignacio Upton]

I don't believe that we know everything that happened on 9/11 (Able Danger anyone?) but I don't believe that the government itself orchestrated 9/11, at least not the Loose Change version of events. I believe that it was incompetence.

Let me ask a few questions for MIHOPers who believe in the LC version of events:

1. Why wouldn't the government just do the controlled demolition without having planes hit? They could kill far more people if they blew up WTC 1, 2, and 7 all at once without notice. And if they took down 7 WTC via controlled demolition, why did they do so after 5:00 PM, and not during the morning?

2. You claim that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, but not a single witness claimed they saw a missile. Witnesses said (including Paul Begala) that they saw a plane, with those who were closer to the site saying they saw a commercial jetliner. Also, the DNA and remains of the victims of the plane (including the hijackers) and pieces of the freakin' plane were on the lawn! Also, a missile leaves a white streak in the sky. Why didn't we see anything like that near the Pentagon?

3. Why do you deny that 7 WTC had a large hole in its bottom floors on the south end? Do you believe that the firefighters who made that report are complicit? And why do you believe that Silverstein admitted to "pulling" the building, when "pull it" isn't even used by demolition experts to describe implosions?

4. If MIHOP happened, but Flight 93 was shot down, why wouldn't the government just let it proceed to its target? You would think that having Flight 93 hit the White House or Capitol would provide an even bigger political boon for Bush than he got.

5. Also, for those that claim Flight 93 never even crashed in Shanksville, how do you explain these pics:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/moussaoui-trial-exhibits.html

6. Why hasn't anyone come out in public to blow the whistle on BushCo? I have a hard time believing that an administration that couldn't keep their wiretapping or secret prisons under wraps, could keep something like this secret.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

1. i don't believe in attempting to debunk theories with

hypothetical questions w/o carefully analyzing the evidence first..

[Ignacio Upton]

2. I am analyzing the evidence

Also, I take Occams's Razor into account.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

5. right on

i have a problem w/ the physical anomalies; especially this one..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=wtc+molten+steel



entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

[William Seger]

49. The purpose...

... of hypothetical questions like this (and I could come up with a few myself, such as: wouldn't it have been a much easier and safer plot to simply put a Big F-ing Bomb in the buildings, like the first WTC attack?) is not to debunk the conspiracy evidence, but to demonstrate that they do not start off on equal footing with the theory that hijackers crashed planes into the buildings, which couldn't withstand the combined effects of structural damage and the heat of the fires. Debunking the evidence presented is a completely different matter, but the point of these questions is that CTers are promoting theories that begin from far-fetched premises. CTers claim that "OCTers" aren't convinced by the CT evidence because they simply reject the notion that their own government would plot an attack on their own citizens. I personally don't have any problem at all accepting that premise; I simply find it hard to believe that they came up with the plots proposed by CTers, when I can think of dozens of far less elaborate and much safer plots that would accomplish the same presumed objective. (And if I wanted to use the incident to justify an invasion of Iraq, I believe I would have thought to include at least one or two Iraqi hijackers.) That means that CTers need some very strong evidence to prove to me that that's what happened, yet in case after case after case, the evidence presented has alternative explanations.

[Nozebro]

50. OCT supporters need what is impossible to have, Mr. Segar. OCT'ers

can't provide ANY credible evidence for their claims, much less "strong" evidence. So far, the only "evidence" they've produced was either faked, manufactured, eyewitness "accounts", and government-sponsored reports. If the OCT was true, by now, there would be abundant credible evidence and no need to withhold evidence, suppress evidence, and invade the Net with a virtual "Army" of
pro-OCT promoters/defenders/propaganda/disinformation troops.

[William Seger]

52. Ah.

"OCT supporters need what is impossible to have, Mr. Segar."

And anyone who doesn't immediately appreciate this "impossibility" must be stupid, right? And all the experts who say otherwise must be in on the conspiracy, right?

"OCT'ers can't provide ANY credible evidence for their claims, much less 'strong' evidence."

Really? I thought they had.

"So far, the only 'evidence' they've produced was either faked, manufactured, eyewitness 'accounts', and government-sponsored reports."

Ah. And we can be sure that's true because we already know that's not what really happened, right?

I'm very sorry, but I'm really not interested is such pointless and worthless "debate."

[Nozebro]

54. You needn't be sorry, Mr. Segar. Just bone up on the facts & then

you can join in the discussion by contributing substantive points. You might even decide to make history by being the very first OCT'er to actually make a complete argument in support of the OCT.

[Nozebro]

3. I don't believe everything the Gov't says, but THIS is incompetence, or

as OCT'er merv might say: "a big pile of poo".

[pauldp]

4. "Pull it" is very suspicious.

Your first mistake is equating MIHOP with Loose Change.
You can throw all the physical evidence in the shitter and still make a great case for MIHOP.
cooperativeresearch.org's entries on Pakistan's ISI is a good starting point. Or "Crossing the Rubicon".

However, regarding the verb "to pull" in the demolition industry:

From a PBS interview with Stacy Loizeaux - heir apparent to Controlled Demolition Inc.
<snip>
There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being PULLED in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
<snip>
Well, you just PULL IT away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will PULL ITSELF completely away from the building. It can be done.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion
<snip>
The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to PULL the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational PULL.
<snip>

Also:
<snip>
The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to PULL the columns inward," said Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland-based company whose handiwork brought down the Dome.
<snip>

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:0ro1z2pyWBIJ:seattlepi.nwsource.com/kingdome/main.shtml+pull+a+building+controlled+demolition+inc&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari

And of course from the documentary where Silverstein makes his "pull it" comment:
"we're getting ready to pull building 6"

If it looks, wadles, quacks and dives for fish like a duck...



Subject edited for emphasis

[Nozebro]

8. Maybe trying to make that connection is the whole reason for the post. nt

nt

[KJF]

6. Briefly

I don't know if you call me a MIHOPer, perhaps more of a LIHOPer plus or something, but anyway:

(1) Controlled demolition with no planes: it was piggybacked on a real Al Qaeda plot - the hijackers were real and the planes hit the towers. Then they blew them up. Seven was blown up later, because they thought it was going to fall down and, say, damage neighbouring buildings.

(2) I don't.

(3) I don't deny it. However, it's been 5 years. How about some photos. It won't make any difference anyway - the passive fire protection was not that badly damaged. Who knows what Larry meant, but wouldn't it be a good idea to put him under oath?

(4) United 93 was shot down (if it was shot down) because it was (believed to be) an enemy aircraft. What's wrong with that?

(5) I don't.

(6) Just become some secrets leak, doesn't mean they all do - that's just a popular misconception. There are lots of whistleblowers, Sibel Edmonds for example. In fact, there's so many whistleblowers they've formed an organisation.

[Ignacio Upton]

9. Sibel wasn't alleging MIHOP

Her incident could be evidence for LIHOP. I'm in the incompetence camp and I'm open to looking at LIHOP, but I just can't believe that the same administration that cut money from counter-terrorism pre-9/11, and the same administration that shelved the Hart-Rudmann Report, allowed 9/11 to happen on purpose. I think that they just couldn't grasp the reallity of the threat, and it happened because of piss-poor planning on their party.

[FoxOnTheRun]

10. She said

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/edmonds_discusses_possibility_attack_inside_job.htm

Alex Jones: Sibel, what I'm asking you is, in your gut, do you think 9/11 to some extent is an inside job?

Sibel Edmonds: Well, again, as I am telling you, I'm trying to tell you is, I have all the evidence of cover-up. Now, who were the people behind this? And why? And how? We don't have a definite answer. As I said, we can come up with theories, we can come up with speculation, but they do not--I mean, in my opinion, they are not facts. But also what government has been giving us, again, I don't consider those a total--you know-- total truth or fact either.

Alex Jones: Would you be surprised?

Sibel Edmonds: No. I wouldn't.

Alex Jones: You wouldn't be surprised if elements or criminal elements or private contractors were involved in 9/11?

Sibel Edmonds: No, I wouldn't be surprised.

Alex Jones: So you wouldn't be surprised like many others, because of the evidence and the cover-up you've seen, if 9/11 was an inside job?

Sibel Edmonds: At this point, I'd have to say no, I wouldn't be surprised.

Alex Jones: Do you think the evidence is leaning towards that?

Sibel Edmonds: Well, again, considering the level of cover-up and the length at which they have gone to gag people and prevent information-- this information from coming out, I would say yes.

[Ignacio Upton]

12. Why did she appear on Alex Jones' show?

The guy is batshit crazy. I'm not questioning her story, but if she wants to further her credibility, she should avoid people like Alex Jone, Jim Fetzer, or Judy Wood.

[FoxOnTheRun]

13. She is interviewed by him.

He has a radio show, that is what you do, you interview people.

[Ignacio Upton]

14. I corrected my post

I accidently typed out the wrong thing.

[FoxOnTheRun]

15. Why is he crazy?

Should he shout at her like Hannity does or cut her off. Or don't shedule her like MSM at all?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

17. because the truth is scary to some..

natural reaction is to dismiss those speaking it as 'batshit crazy' or 'nutjob' ..search those terms on freerepublic and look at teh mentality of those using them; not the kind of company i would want to keep

also; AJ doesn't fit teh profile of the mindless drones we see on cnn everyday..

dismissing AJ also requires dismissing the fact that he's been correct on just about every claim he's made

[Ignacio Upton]

18. I'll let this quote speak for itself:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=115819674784894493

"the decision to stage a new Pearl Harbor on 9-11 was made not by Dick Cheney and the neocons, but was dictated from on high by David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Elizabeth of England, and the other financiers of the secretive Bilderberg Group that controls world resources from behind the scenes"

He's sounds like Lyndon LaRouche.

[FoxOnTheRun]

19. CFR was pretty happy after 911

David Rockefeller admits in his own memoirs that he is guilty of creating World Government and destroying the US.

Queen Beatrix is the daughter of Reiter-SS Prince Bernhard and founder of Bilderberg

Elizabeth I don't know, she has German roots but I'm not familiar with her.


Until the Iraq war everything was fine between Europe and US, then came the break and people at Bilderberg started to shout at each other.
The Neocons went ape and we have a quarrel.

Many Presidents said that the Banks rule

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial
element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since
the days of Andrew Jackson."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
(1882-1945), 32nd US President
November 21, 1933

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/fdr.html

[DrDebug]

44. Decision is difficult, but 9/11 could not happen without their approval

Dick Cheney may appear to be very powerful, but Rockefellers, Orange-Nassuas and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsors do and always will outrank him. If they didn't approve, it could not have happened, since their economical and political power is far more extensive than a mere Vice President of the United States.

Queen Elizabeth is a member of the most powerful clan in the world and is still the Queen of the World. Not only are they ultimately owner of four countries (United Kingdom, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden); if you don't believe me, read the constitution/laws of the countries and it specially says that they are the country and democracy exists by the grace of the King, but they have to sign all laws into effect, approve of every government and are untouchable, ie. they do not abide with the law they create. This makes the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsors the real rulers of the world especially since all roads lead to London, and nothing happens without the approval and consent of the elite in London who still consider the United States as one of their territories and not the other way around.

Queen Beatrix is a member of the second most powerful royal clan in the world. They "only" own two countries: The Netherlands, Luxembourg, but unlike their rival clan, they have enormous wealth which is such that Fortune 500 was forced to degrade her from her richest woman in the world position without providing any evidence explaining why she is not the richest woman in earth. Her grandmother owned 51% of Royal Dutch Oil which merged with Shell at 60/40% and that provided the Oranges with 30% of Shell. Shell still refuses to disclose the percentage of ownership of their stockholders and she is still listed as the largest stockholder. Even if the percentage is significant lower, the wealth could not have disappeared, and the second largest corporation in the world is their property.

The Orange-Nassaus are not really a royal family, since they crowned themselves (The Saudi royals also crowned themselves BTW), they were dukes of Orange in France. Look at a map of France and get yourself a magnifying glass, because it's just an insignificant small town. During the Congress of Vienna in 1815, it was the elite families who redrew the map of Europe after the defeat of Napolean. The Netherlands was given to the Oranges, Sweden (family of the British royalty) could take Norway, the Russian emperor could grab Finland and Poland, the Papal States were returned to the pope, and most of Germany were given to the Dukes and Princes of the so-called noble families as well. Henry Kissinger wrote his doctoral dissertation about this event and he considered it a great event, because the elite blatently ignored democracy and just carved up everything among themselves and even crowned some of the peers royals.

The Rockefellers are exactly the same and they own so much oil that any decision about oil is taken by that family. Ronald Reagan didn't like George H.W. Bush and had no intention whatsoever of selecting Bush as his Vice President. Ronald Reagan had a meeting with David Rockefeller (Tarpley, Unauthorized biography) and he was simply told that if he did not select George H.W. Bush as Vice President then he would make sure that Ronald Reagan could not get elected or hold any political position, and it was therefore David Rockefeller who selected George H.W. Bush as Vice President, and it is the Rockefellers who started all this Bush crap.

So please explain why the above listed families are not relevant, because even though you don't see them make any decisions, it is clear that their power is immense and global. And if Bush is on his tours, he has to meet with them and not the other way around. If they want to discuss a matter with George Bush then Bush has to come to them. Nothing has changed for the past centuries and the same groups are still firmly in control, and the so called democracy is merely intended to keep the population happy and hides the real decision makers in this world.

Lyndon LaRouche may have started a cult of personality, and is bordering on the far right, however I have yet to see his conclusions proven wrong. Please notice all the banks who had pre-knowledge in 9/11 which is exactly what Lyndon has been saying for years: it is the international bankers together with elite families who one layer above the governments. I do not doubt the correctness of his research even though I want nothing to do with his group and cult of personality.

[DrDebug]

45. (continued) The five families who rule the world

The order is unclear, but the top of the pyramid consists of five clans:

1. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha a.k.a. Windsor

The ranking order of the other four are unclear:

al-Saud

Rockefeller

Rothschild

Orange-Nassau

So why are the Bushes working for them? Because it is clear that the Bush clan will join their ranks and will be one of the few clans who have merited inclusion. Just like the al-Sauds have merited inclusion during the 20th century. The Bush family was a promising family and George H.W. Bush did them a great favor with John F. Kennedy and the liberation of the CIA from the US government, and for those reasons he was given the Vice Presidency and later the Presidency. If the above five clans didn't approve of 9/11 then they would have simply ended the Bush administration, just like they did with Margaret Thatcher when she fell out of grace.

And if you check my posts, you'll notice that this conclusion was the result of an extensive investigation. So indeed I agree with both Lyndon LaRouche and Alex Jones - not with his conclusion, because it is unclear who ordered it, however the above families most definitely approved of it, and they are the real rulers of this planet. And that people use ad hominems merely shows their ignorance and the effectiveness of propaganda and secret societies and groups.

[DrDebug]

58. Common theme behind the ruling families

Because I am probably already considered crazy by many - just like Alex Jones - and the 9/11 stuff is about done. The ruling elite have now been identified as well, so it's time to discuss blood lines.

William the Lion

The blood line theme also includes other families like the Cheney family, the Rumsfeld family, and many others. The al-Sauds, Rockefellers and Rothschilds are an exception since they proved themselves worthy in another way. Families like Bush, Cheney, Du Pont, Orange, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Thyssen, etc. (technically speaking this includes the Kennedy family however they are out of grace) all have the same roots. You'll sometimes hear the media talk about King William I of England, but that is a red herring to divert attention away for the real branch.

The real ancestor is King William the Lion of Scotland (1143-1214) who is an ancestor of the fast majority of elite families. This is also the reason why I call them clans and not families, because they are all Scottish and not German either (that was because Germany was carved into hunderds of little countries which all were ruled by their ancestors). It is the Scottish royal lineage which has dominated this world for centuries now.

The most important part of the lineage:

King William the Lion of Scotland (1143-1214)
http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/blfamwilliamlion.htm

Isabel of Scotland married Robert de Ros
Robert de Ros, Magna Charta, Lord successful at international banking. Created first covert intelligence organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_Ros

Sir William de Ros and Lucy de Ros
Lucy de Ros married Robert Plumpton, Knight. Two children Sir William Plumpton and Alice Plumpton. Established Order of the Rose and Cross (and freemasonry is derived from this order as a more generic form)
http://www.rosicrucian-order.com/

Alice Plumpton, Baron married Sir John Boteler. Daughter Alice Boteler
Descended of William I "The Conqueror" King of England

Source: William Cooper - Mystery Babylon 13 (radio broadcast)

Bush is related to this royal blood lineage via the Prescotts which is why the name Prescott is common within their family. Obadiah Bush was not that relevant. It wasn't until the emancipation and deseggration of student organizations, that only ancestors of King William The Lion which could be included in Skull & Bones.

And since the lineage has a split going to William I, it is that King which is often refered to in the press, since William the Conqueror does not have more important ancestors.

Green = Charlemagne
Note the inclusion of Scotland

The only people who extensively studied and published these lineages are the Latter Day Saints ( http://rootie.geeknet.com/hudson3.html ), however they can be considered experts on genealogy and they say that the Scottish Royal tree is a bloodline of Charlemagne, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (747-814), the Kings of the Franks. It was Charlemagne who conquered Italy and took Rome and forced the Pope to crown him as the new emperor of Rome and thus the new world leader, because the Roman empire had collapsed. The new empire was different because it was no longer the Mediterranean, but Western Europe which was going to rule the world and remained to rule until first the British and then the Americans took over. Ironically by the people from the same lineage as Charlemagne.

Charlemagne has an elusive ancestory as well, because ultimately the blood line ends up at Tros, the King of Troy and the Darda (Dardanus), the King of Dardania (estimated at around 1500 BC, however the exact date cannot be known, since it has become mythological and not historical).

In Greek mythology, Dardanus ("burner up") was a son of Zeus by Electra, daughter of Atlas, and founder of the city of Dardania on Mount Ida in the Troad.

Of course most call this absurd, but I can now say that I've told you the last piece of the puzzle, and what the main selection criteria for the elite is, because the Scottish Royal lineage was highly successful in international banking, were the first to start a covert intelligence agency, and are at the foundation of secret groups like freemasonry and the more modern and more elitist variants like CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral.

[FoxOnTheRun]

46. Also

In the UK MI5/MI6 agents and MP's have to swear an oath of allegiance to the queen.
They don't have a constitution.


As far as I know Reagan was tricked into taking G.H.Bush, because he wanted Gerald Ford as vice president and then he withdrew in the last moment and he had to take Bush.

Bush has his fingers everywhere, drugs is also a good income.

By the end of 1981, through a series of Executive Orders and National Security Decision Directives, many of which have been declassified, Vice President Bush was placed in charge of all Reagan administration intelligence operations. All of the covert operations carried out by officers of the CIA, the Pentagon, and every other federal agency, along with a rogue army of former intelligence operatives and foreign agents, were commanded by George Bush. Gary Webb (San Jose Mercury News) acknowledged, that he simply had not traced the command structure over the Contras up into the White House, although he had gotten some indications that the operation was not just CIA.

http://www.powderburns.org/testimony.html


If someone steps out of the line he gets shot, like Kennedy. Play ball make money with drugs, military industrial complex, rebuild bombed countries
or otherwise and you are left alone.
In my opinion this Bush administration is so blatant criminally obvious that it's risking everything.


Alex Jones oversimplifies sometimes but it's more to make things clearer. Although I'm not sure what Russia's part is and if it's really owned by Rothschild like Yukos is.

There are more Families like Astor, DuPonts, Li, Rothschild, Russell, Van Duyn etc.

According to estimates only a handful of families owns 85% of worlds wealth.

[DrDebug]

47. George H.W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani are knighted as well

They swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth as well.

I know there are a couple of more families, but those five are the most important. DuPont probably belongs at the top as well.

They never liked the Kennedies which is the reason why the remainder of that family often ends up in small airplanes which happen to crash as well. The Kennedy wanted to be part of the elite, but for some reason they didn't meet the criteria, like ruthlessness, opportunism, treacherousness, etc.

Don't know about Russia (and China for that matter) either. They fit in somewhere and they are clearly masonic (DDR flag!) as well. It is clear that Putin and Bush are close allies - even though they differ on quite a number of opinions. However the politics of Russia is incredibly complex as well and enormously corrupt.

My idea is that Bush administration wants to risk everything; it's clearly an administration which will last the full eight years and sink as deep into depravity as they possibly can. Don't know exactly what will happen in 2008, but I get the impression that the Bush administration is laying down the foundation for the New World Order whether it is a Pax Americana or a global based NWO, but probably the years after Bush will probably be more relaxed without changing the foundation laid by Bush. At least that's a possible explanation for the immense criminal behavior of Bush et al.

[FoxOnTheRun]

48. Yesterday there was a secret meeting

for the North American Union
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52079

we all know it's signed and will go along further. Look how many Northcom guys attend (Martial Law etc.)


The Bolshevik revolution was financed by Wallstreet and CIA put Mao Tse Tung in as a leader in China (according to CIA chief on History Channel)

A good beginners book is http://reactor-core.org/none-dare.html

The CFR has the Lenin' letters in a glass vitrine and when Gorbachev visited the CFR he adoringly laid his hand on it.
(there is photo but I can't find it online)

As far as I can see the elite has tried different models of oppression fascism, communism and learned how to manipulate and control.
The problem is you always get a backlash from the population when it becomes to obvious.


I don't think the years after Bush will be relaxed, many experts say we are on the verge of a global economic collapse (some say worse than 1929 and the thirties)
Henry Kissinger said 1,5 years ago at the Bilderberg meeting that the oil price is going to be around 150$/ barrel which could become reality if they nuke Iran. Also we have China and Russia having interests in Iran which could or will lead to further problems.

[DrDebug]

51. A good book, but I meant the current situation in Russia

I know that Communist Russia was financed by the international bankers and that Mao was from the Chinese Yale ;)

The book keeps on mentioning the same family names as I just listed BTW. So that's yet another confirmation.

The current situation is very unclear. There is a tremendenous amount of participation of Russia with the United States, however the exact nature is very blurry and lots seem to be happening below the surface. The strange thing is that Bush is always visiting Putin and for some reason Putin seems to be the initiator of the visits and is clearly brieving Bush. On the outside it appears like Russia has been reduced to the second rate country, but maybe that can be deceptive and it could well be that Russia is playing a much more important role.

Iran is very tricky. If they nuke Iran then it can trigger something else altogether, because the A.Q. Khan network supplied Pakistan with nuclear capabilities, however the A.Q. Khan network was set up to create a pan-Arab (so not just Pakistan but probably including countries like Saudi Arabia!) nuclear weapon. The Russian and American military tried a similar strategy of tension during the Cuban missile crisis where the military wanted a nuclear conflict. Unlike the 1960s we don't have JFKs and Khrushchevs anymore, because ultimately those two men made the difference between War and Peace.

If the Iran nuking goes ahead, there is a chance that it is meant to start to small scale nuclear war because they previously armed countries nearby with the same weapons. However I got the impression that the Bilderbergers were categorically against a war with Iran, so if that story is true, it will mean that the Bush administration will be cancelled prematurely in one way or another. Probably comparable to Watergate (which was intended to stop Nixon) and Margaret Thatcher, so if they intentionally are leaking a scandal, it'll be a decision from the elite/Bilderberg to stop the Bush administration.

[FoxOnTheRun]

53. The interesting thing about Russia

is they have paid there credits back and are as a country debt free.
When there was this G8 meeting in Russia he didn't invite the IMF, which was a first because normally they initiate the meeting.

I'm not sure about Bilderberg, there are a lot of people, first timers or some low level people, and I don't know if they all
know what the plans really are. You have deception over deception and private meetings where more is said than in a big gathering.


There many parts who want to break away from IMF dominance like

China or Russia in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-09/20/content_5117345.htm

Or Chavez with trading by circumventing the trading with dollar by direct exchange of goods


We will see what happens.

[DrDebug]

56. Debt free Russia. That can become very interesting

Because they are rapidly becoming the most important country for pornography and chief supplier of prostitutes nowadays, and there is lots of money to be made with sex and the nerds, construction workers and businessmen love Russian women, because they are pretty slender caucasians and - most importantly - cheap.

During the al-Cokeda investigation it was a Russian company who was working with the CIA and the Saudis to set up an airplane for the drugs flights, and their role in drugs is becoming more and more extensive. It is clear that the insurgency in both Afghanistan and Iraq is armed by Russia (probably in return for drugs), so that means just those two wars will provide billions to the Russian economy. Add to that their enormous oil and gas reserves and their "generic" weapons exports.

If they are close to debt free and the Western world is still highly in debt, it'll mean that Russia will have a great future...

[Anarcho-Socialist]

64. "They swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth"

No they did not. They received honorary knighthoods (KBEs). They would only swear allegiance to the Queen if they decided to take up citizenship within a Commonwealth Realm, which is not very likely.

[DrDebug]

66. Yes you have to swear allegiance to the Queen

That is a part of being knighted. When you accept a knighthood you swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth. You become a British national and you are from then on in Her Majesty's Service. And that is exactly what George H.W. Bush, Normal Schwarzkopf, Bill Gates, Rudi Giualiani did and they did for a reason.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

68. You are talking rubbish

Those people you mentioned are not knights of the realm. Those people are U.S. nationals and received an honorary knighthood known as a K.B.E. As they are not British citizens they are not considered knights (they are not entitled to use 'Sir' prefix) and give no allegiance to the crown, but they are permitted to use the KBE suffix after their name. A K.B.E. does not qualify a recipient to British citizenship.

"...and they did for a reason."

The K.B.E. is considered a prestigious award the highest that a non-British citizen can receive from the British government in the name of the monarch.

[DrDebug]

70. It contains swearing

Part of the ritual is "Swearing upon the sword of His Imperial Majesty" which means that they are in her service. You have been reading too much of the propaganda without wanting to realize what it is all about.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

65. If you sent what you wrote

to historians, political scientists and cultural commentators, they'd laugh in your face.

"Queen Elizabeth is a member of the most powerful clan in the world and is still the Queen of the World."

What year do you think it is? 1906?

Do you know what a Constitutional Monarchy is? Do you know what a ceremonial head of state is and does? Do you have any understanding at all about Britain's Parliamentary system?

"...nothing happens without the approval and consent of the elite in London who still consider the United States as one of their territories and not the other way around."

That made me laugh and laugh. You show no appreciation of the intricacies of international diplomacy and the nature of the UK-US alliance. Do you really think the Queen of the United Kingdom tells American business and political leaders what to do? Please read up on things before going on a posting trip.

[DrDebug]

67. Actually you show yourself very ignorant about monarchies

Monarchies are not democracies. The United Kingdom is not a democracy, but an absolute monarchy where the democracy is tolerated by her Majesty's approval. She signs every law into effect. There is no law with her approval. And she has weekly meeting with the Prime-Minister to ensure that politics happen according to her views.

There is NOTHING ceremonial about monarchies. That's just a false illusion in the press. Read the Act of Settlement of 1701 and it is clear. Actually you cannot even say that the United Kingdom is not a democracy, because of the Treason Felony Act which states:

3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies
...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, ...within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her... to change her... measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, ...or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ...to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,511147,00.html

So technically speaking no British citizen is allowed to even question her Majesty's rule

[Anarcho-Socialist]

69. You know nothing about governance in the United Kingdom

I am a junior historian and have spent my life in this country. I know more about the structure of British government than most, including you especially.

Your characterisation of Britain as governed by an "Absolute monarchy" is incredibly erroneous and one that I would expect from an elementary student.

The British monarchy progressed from the turmoil of the Commonwealth of England, through the 'Glorious Revolution of 1688', the establishment of the political party structure from the 1700s, the Great Reform Acts between 1832 and 1938, down to the Parliament Act of 1949 has brought a change in Great Britain from divine-right rule to Parliamentary democracy in the context of a Constitutional Monarchy.

Parliament which is dominated by an elected House of Commons exercises power in her name, but the Queen is not allowed to lobby or back political parties since it would initiate a constitutional crisis (think George III). The concept of the nation state has moved on from monarchy = state, to a notion where the state is dominated by a particular group. Britain is dominated by the Bourgeoisie which supplanted the gentry as the dominant social class in Britain after 1832. If the Queen tried to exercise the historical powers of the monarchy she could not do so without the support of the dominant social class. Since the Bourgeoisie holds the power they are not going to hand it back to a historical relic.

[DrDebug]

71. You know nothing about monarchies. You are just repeating the age old lies

The King is the country and everything happens by their grace. The constitutional government is one layer below the monarchy. And the dominant social class is given the privilege of doing the majority of rule, but it is the Queen who approves of everything.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

72. You're hilarious

Can I have your permission to post a link in the United Kingdom forum to your posts here? I'm sure they'd find what you're saying to be equally hilarious.

[DrDebug]

73. And now it's time to ridicule

Typical truth suppresion behavior

[DrDebug]

74. From the Act of Settlement

IV. And whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof, and all the Kings and Queens, who shall ascend the throne of this Realm, ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws, and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same

In short:

The Kings and Queens administer the government and the officers and minister serve both the people and the Kings and Queens. This simply means that the Kings and Queens are top dog. As always the language is such that you can easily miss the fine detail.

The laws are for and of the people. The Kings and Queens administer the government and the government serves them both (!)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

75. Plllllleeeeease! Say yes. n/t

[DrDebug]

76. You don't need my permission

So make fun, but it is 100% clear that the Queen is the United Kingdom and nothing happens without her approval. Mind you: Questioning Her Majesty's Rule is still treason for British citizens. Just so you know.

My generic disclaimer + copyright:

Applies to all my posts in this thread:

All text taken from wikipedia and sourcewatch is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights ). This post contains copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml )

You are free to copy this post within 'fair use', if you wish to use the copyrighted material from this post for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owners (see links). Full permission for whatever purpose is granted for these compilations.

None of the contributors or anyone else in any way whatsoever can be held responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages. No guarantees are made, in any way whatsoever, about the validity of the information found here. Any information found on this page can be incomplete, outdated, incorrect and it is upto the user to check the validity of any information found here.

All persons, corporations and countries mentoined in these post are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

No consequential damages can be sought for this post, as it is a voluntary developed freely to create various online educational, cultural and informational resources. This information is being given to you gratuitously and there is no agreement or understanding between you and the author.

[FoxOnTheRun]

77. The fun thing is like all the other candidates for the throne die

Diana


Fergie had luck

The Duchess Of York narrowly escaped death - after her car carrying her to the World Trade Center in New York was stuck in traffic. Yesterday morning Sarah Ferguson and her assistant Kate Waddington were in a taxi, on their way to a business meeting in the World Trade Center - which collapsed after two suicide planes crashed into them. The duchess was due to meet Ken Merlo and Johnny O'Sullivan - who run her stateside charity Chances For Children - whose office was situated on the 101st floor. Both Merlo and O'Sullivan were absent from the building when the tragedy occurred. Her spokesman says, "The Duchess of York is desperately upset for everyone involved in this terrible tragedy. It is unbelievable, she was just a few minutes away when the explosion took place

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2001-09-12#celeb2

[DrDebug]

78. So Fergie was supposed to be in WTC1?

That's no coincidence!

[FoxOnTheRun]

79. When you know that there is an event like this, you use it

It becomes a bit too obvious, but hey better than a fake car accident again

[DrDebug]

80. And it is always hard to find a driver for those cars

He was probably a Manchurian, but it is still hard to find somebody who is willing to crash a car into a pilar at 70-80 miles per hour.

They all used it to their advantage, but this is another indication that the British royals might not have been entirely ignorant about 9/11.

An another unexplained oddity is that Defence Systems Limited and Alpha Firm who are part of Marsh happened to have their headquarters next to Buckingham Palace and are in charge of protecting her.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. Whether the current administration did 9/11 or not,, please don't

mistake bad governance with incompetence.

These people have been extremely competent at stealing elections, looting the treasury, dragging our country to war, setting up a police state, and getting away with all that without any negative fallout.

Do you suppose they are just lucky?

[KJF]

28. I think the main problem with your argument...

... is that you're saying that if it was LIHOP or MIHOP, then it must have been big MIHOP or big LIHOP with demolition, missiles, a stand down, etc. It could just be small LIHOP or small MIHOP with just a group of CIA agents (say) providing the hijackers with extra pilot training and tipping them the wink about the war games. Who knows?

Incompetence is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, there's just too much incompetence there for it to work for me: most of the hijackers were known to one agency or another, some of them were very well known, the NSA was actually intercepting some of their communications, the Moussaoui investigation was shut down, as was Able Danger, etc.

[rman]

34. Sibel is alleging convergence of Saudi and US money trails

relating to terrorism.


"...So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation."

"Then things start getting a lot of overlap-- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money."
-- Sibel Edmonds
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml


"There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized," further revealing that "some are heads of government agencies or politicians--but I don’t want to go any further than that"
-- Sibel Edmonds
http://www.fathers.ca/fbi_cover-up.htm


How does that fit your incompetence theory?

[mirandapriestly]

42. When do you think the Patriot Act was written?

and why was it written if they didn't anticipate the "terror" threat (manufactured as it is)

[John Q. Citizen]

7. I'll do my best

1. Why do you imagine that more deaths than the 3000 or so from the plane hit's and the collapses of the towers would be needed for MIHOP? The planes were cover. The planes pinned it on the Middle Eastern terrorists. Also, if it was done by terrorist intent on killing as many Americans as possible, why didn't they do it after everyone had gotten to work? Why do it so early in the morning?

2. I never claimed a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. You are mistaken.

3. I never denied that WTC #7 had a large hole in its bottom floors on the south end. In that case,though, why didn't it tip over?

4. I don't know if flight 93 was shot down or not. However, if the passengers and crew were about to regain control of the plane, perhaps whoever was behind the events of the day decided to "lose" the evidence.

5. Doesn't apply to me, so there's nothing to explain.

6. It's not secret or you wouldn't be writing about it. Just like the prisons and the wire taps it makes absolutely no difference that it's not secret. You aren't that out of touch with reality, are you?

[Bushwick Bill]

11. Meet Willie Rodriguez.

I am more 9/11 Press For Truth http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=9%2F11+Press+For+Truth and Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688 MIHOP, but as far as demolition and witnesses, Willie Rodriguez is interesting. Go to the 10 minute mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294&q=William+Rodriguez

[Sinti]

20. Well...

1, 2, 3 and 5:

These are in no way MIHOP prerequisites. They are additional conspiracy theories kind of randomly added to the MIHOP. If there were bombs in the buildings they could have just as easily been planted by terrorists.

4 Why do you believe 93 was shot down?

6 They have, sir. They have. FBI, CIA, and DIA agents came out left and right to try to tell their stories of how they tried to stop it and were prevented from doing their jobs by this administration, how they were obstructed, thwarted, and threatened. The corporate media has chosen to ignore them in large measure, but you can find the congressional hearings with their testimony.

MIHOP depends on the fact that:

1. They stated they wanted a "New Pearl Harbor"

2. They went out of their way to stop ongoing investigations and prevent new ones from starting.

3. Their friends paid for the deed. The terrorist's financing came from the Saudi Royal family, the bin Ladens, Khalid bin Mahfouz, and the ISI - three of the four are close associates of the Bush's themselves, the ISI works hand-in-hand with the CIA and has since the coup happened in Pakistan.

If a chief of police says he wishes someone was dead, and that person winds up dead, and you find out he prevented his detectives from investigating the planned murder before it happened, then you find out that the killers were paid by a close associate of said police chief, what would you think? This is where I'm stuck.

Edited to add:

There's also the fact that most of your command and control structure was AWOL on 9/11. Your Sec. Def and his deputy were in a meeting, and didn't feel compelled to stop it, even though we were under attack. The head of the NMCC had his deputy take over from 8:30 to 10:00. The hijack coordinator was out of the country. Bush was sitting in Booker like an ass, the SS didn't do a damn thing, even after they knew we were under attack. Myers, knowing a plane had hit, just went ahead with his meeting with Max Cleland... at some point you have to say, there's no way this could all be coincidental.

[leftofthedial]

21. no problemo

1. symbolism, theater, cultivation of more fear and hatred, media attention, direct and secondary financial gain. more like Pearl Harbor, technically feasible, built-in "explanation"

2. "cruise missiles" are their own theory and are neither central, necessary or particularly accepted by MIHOP believers

3. I don't deny or particularly know much about WT7. I tend to think it was tangential to the whole neocon plot.

4. Perhaps 93 was shot down because the plotters feared that the passenger revolt had succeeded, exposing their subterfuge.

5. Something crashed.

6. None of the core planners of the illegal invasion of Iraq have come forward. None of the central Iran Contra figures came forward. None of the participants in uncounted conspiracies have never come forward. Evidence of failed conspiracies does not prove that all conspiracies fail.

[Ignacio Upton]

22. I should also add that Hani Hanjour wasn't as bad a pilot as you may think

[Kingshakabobo]

23. Was or was not? nt

[Ignacio Upton]

24. Thanks for pointing out the correction

Hanjour was a crappy pilot, but he was competent enough to pilot that plane into the Pentagon. He managed for fly a plane down the eastern seaboard and he still got his commercial pilot's license.

[Kingshakabobo]

26. I've been a private pilot for 20 years and I'm quite sure.....

........he could have pulled it off with the training he had. The MIHOPers try to claim the pentagon crash was some miraculous stunt flying - it wasn't. As a matter of fact, the approach and 2.5 minute descending right turn to bleed 6000ft of altitude was a bit amateurish. An experienced pilot might have been able to pull off a straight-in shot after initial visual contact but Hanjour took the safe bet by visually locating the target and swinging around to set it up like a landing. Quite like a VFR pilot locating an airfield and then swinging it around to enter the traffic pattern.

The skills needed for those maneuvers would certainly be within the skill level of a FAA CERTIFIED LICENSED COMMERCIAL PILOT. The rest of the pieces(jet throttle management, rudimentary navigation and autopilot etc.) would be picked up in simulator training.

[mirandapriestly]

29. uh huh...eom

[Kingshakabobo]

38. I've noticed a lot of you posts are juvenile nonsensical posts.

Good for you! You have a computer! And you can type! :thumbsup:

[mirandapriestly]

41. I just get kind of tired of the

"I am an experienced pilot and a physicist and here are my calculations which PROVE that the towers came down the way I said. Ignore those explosions that is just the sound of the floors pancaking"
posts, people all over the internets say the same things and it just sounds like bullcrap.

[Lilith Velkor]

59. pfft.

:nopity:

[frylock]

62. it is odd that both military and commercial pilots state otherwise..

and completely on the record. The only place that I hear that it really was a pretty routine maneuver that just about anybody with a few hours of MSFS under their belt could execute is from anonymous posters on discussion boards.

But who can say for sure that these guys weren't highly trained military pilots to begin with?

[Nozebro]

63. Exactly right about military pilots. They put on an air show and

flew safely to their preassigned (landing) field (airbase).

[FoxOnTheRun]

30. He was a crappy pilot and maybe somehow he could have

been able to hold the plane in the air, but he should have been on the plane for that.

Hani Hanjour
Obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999 from the Federal Aviation Administration. The license expired six months later because he failed to complete a required medical exam. In 1996, he received flight training for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., but did not finish the course because his instructors thought he was not proficient enough. He listed his address as a post office box in Taife, Saudi Arabia, but he also has been linked to addresses in San Diego and Hollywood, Fla. His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html

[MervinFerd]

60. Miss Foxy: SOMEBODY was flying the damn plane!

Unless you are way the fuck over to NoPlane FunnyFarm.

The FBI -might- have the wrong identity. Or that the WP article is wrong. Or that you have misconstrued the situation. HAVE YOU --READ-- THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT??????

In any event, it's not evidence of much of anything.

[FoxOnTheRun]

61. I'm a Fox not a Foxy Lady

It's a boring piece of propaganda.
The whitewash report that left as much contrary evidence out as it could and eyewitness testimonies like William Rodriguez were not included.

We have flying passports, vans with korans and other incriminating evidence. Wow I'm impressed

President Bush had wondered immediately after the attack whether Saddam
Hussein's regime might have had a hand in it. Iraq had been an enemy of the
United States for 11 years, and was the only place in the world where the
United States was engaged in ongoing combat operations. As a former pilot,
the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of the operation and
some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon.
He told us he recalled Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide terrorists as well.
Speculating about other possible states that could be involved, the President
told us he also thought about Iran.

page 334

When I read something like this my stomach turns around.
Even Bush has problems keeping his story straight, like that he saw the first plane hitting on TV.

[FourScore]

25. Incompetence is much too cute a word

for this cabal...I refuse to accept that anymore!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2190713&mesg_id=2190713

[mirandapriestly]

27. Those are just random claims , they aren't the main

reasons people believe MIHOP. If the administration is incompetent then why are they not being held accountable for this incompetence? If they were incompetent they would not have been able to get away with what they have and still remain in office.
I don't know what hit the pentagon, but missiles don't always leave those trails, here is a video of an air to air missile, that is not very visible
http://ftp.delta-v.org/aircraft/vid/Air%20to%20Air%20Missile%20Kill.mpeg
also some will say that you can see that white trail in the Pentagon video that was released.

In #5, those items were released to view years later, there is no evidence that they were found at the scene. I think it is laughable that a photo id would survive a crash that left nothing visible at the site and only 8% of the body parts were allegedly found.

[canetoad]

31. Something spooky about posting a list you want debunked

You, Ignacio Upton, say to the room that you wish to ask a few questions. All cool.

Then you rabbit on that 'you' say this, 'you' say that. To whom, Ignatio, are you talking? Far as I can see, you have posted dishonestly. All of these topics have been hashed and rehashed, yet you, Ignatio Upton think you can offer a brand new insight by asking yet another set of rhetorical questions.

I say to you, the world in general would be better served if you would contribute, rather than troll for old answers to even older questions.

To anyone with any sense of understanding, the fine balance between pressing for the truth of 911 and mindlessly parroting OCT is a slim line. Do you really want answers to your questions or do you want to feverishly pant the old trotted out lines because it in some way, in you own mind strenghthens your own case. I keep my mind open as to you motivations. Do you want answers or do you want a flame war.

So why have you presented us with your 'one size fits all' debunking Ignatio?

Edit for a telling comma!!

[rman]

32. "7 WTC had a large hole in its bottom floors" - no evidence

It is claimed that NYPD has photos that show the damage you mention, but just like so many videos of the pentagon crash, it is has not been released to the public.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Yes, so we are left with the claim of secret evidence..

Why is it still secret?

The other problem with this, is that the secret claim suggests asymetrical damage, which then make no sense as to why the collapes should have been so symetrical. One would think that carving a hole out of one side should result in the building toppling toward that side where there is a secret hole carved out.

[FoxOnTheRun]

37. You can trust your Gov., they never lied to you

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. WTC 7 damage

[canetoad]

33. Another small thing

Why had Loose Change burned itself so deeply into your consciousness. It is one vid among many out there.

The OCTodrones are, in my opinion, giving LC all the publicity it needs and more. If you guys were smart you would ignore it, but no....can't help yourselves. Must DEBUNK. Now.

If I was a religious person I would quote the biblical line 'where god is at work the devil works overtime'. I guess there is an analogy in there for the secular.

It's time now for you to consider the damage you are doing to the OCT. When something is defended simply because that is a position you have taken from the start, it does no favours to your cause. It looks like you are trying to bludgeon your way of thinking into other people's heads. I would suggest that is not the way good citizens behave in a democracy.

Anyhow, I would still like to know why LC has got you so worked up. Is it a boy thing???

[FoxOnTheRun]

35. Are you a girl?

I like that one

where god is at work the devil works overtime

[mirandapriestly]

40. yes I will have to remember that. eom

[mirandapriestly]

39. Why has no one blown the whistle?

Ever heard of Tony Schaffer? He had his security clearance removed and is the target of a smear campaign just for exposing able danger, which no one is even paying attention to.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=NlLKu8VtfIc

[Nozebro]

55. Maybe all they've got are anti-terrorism whistles. EOM

nt

[treestar]

57. Interesting and I will take them on - not even a MIHOPer

1. Why wouldn't the government just do the controlled demolition without having planes hit? They could kill far more people if they blew up WTC 1, 2, and 7 all at once without notice. And if they took down 7 WTC via controlled demolition, why did they do so after 5:00 PM, and not during the morning?

Not as dramatic - if they did it, they would know the American public. And it would be the case that someone planted those bombs, so a bigger investigation would have been demanded. The perpetrators would not all be able to be so easily presented as dead. The suicide hijackers were all on the planes and indisuputably dead - no need to investigate.

2. You claim that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, but not a single witness claimed they saw a missile. Witnesses said (including Paul Begala) that they saw a plane, with those who were closer to the site saying they saw a commercial jetliner. Also, the DNA and remains of the victims of the plane (including the hijackers) and pieces of the freakin' plane were on the lawn! Also, a missile leaves a white streak in the sky. Why didn't we see anything like that near the Pentagon?

This one never made sense to me - I thought they claimed the plane was "incinerated." The whole plane should still be there, and the pieces on the lawn should be studied by forensics to find out if they are part of the plane that is gone as Flight 77. This is just part of the lack of investigation, which again is what leaves * vulnerable to CTs. Trying not to investigate just raises the suspicion that investigation will lead to findings they don't want known.

3. Why do you deny that 7 WTC had a large hole in its bottom floors on the south end? Do you believe that the firefighters who made that report are complicit? And why do you believe that Silverstein admitted to "pulling" the building, when "pull it" isn't even used by demolition experts to describe implosions?

Large hole from what, though? That this building fell down is the most suspicious part, IMO. It could have been brought down at 5:00 p.m. because someone realized that it would contain evidence, maybe. No plan is perfect. And it has worked, because who except people in the 911 dungeon even notices it? Nobody talks about Building 7 except CTers. It is so easy for the public to be distracted by other things, that it is known to the perpetrators, if there be any, that they could "get away" with this part of the "operation" without being noticed by a significant number of Americans.

4. If MIHOP happened, but Flight 93 was shot down, why wouldn't the government just let it proceed to its target? You would think that having Flight 93 hit the White House or Capitol would provide an even bigger political boon for Bush than he got.

Good point, but then, for show - if these people exist, they are diabolically clever and might have realized that this would make their story more "real" and that the twin towers would be, in essence, enough to get the public so stirred up that the hitting of the fourth target would not be needed for that purpose, while the story of the heroic passengers would be inspiring.

5. Also, for those that claim Flight 93 never even crashed in Shanksville, how do you explain these pics:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/moussaoui-...

6. Why hasn't anyone come out in public to blow the whistle on BushCo? I have a hard time believing that an administration that couldn't keep their wiretapping or secret prisons under wraps, could keep something like this secret.

This would have been a smaller and more containable operation, though. And they would have much better motive to contain it. After this, they know too that they can argue in favor of their wiretapping and secret prisons - they've talked the sheeple into it and only a few of us protest this that much.

[Nozebro]

82. Hole in "Holes" in MIHOP

You said: "Why wouldn't the government just do the controlled demolition without having planes hit?"

I ask: Why wouldn't the government just have planes hit the WTC, and not undertake the risks of brining them down by demolishion/explosions?


To your first point: both were needed to accomplish "shock and awe".

Explanation for my point: both were needed to accomplish "shock and awe". Besides, the WTC buildings had lost their symbolic (and physical) lustre a long time ago and were only 30-40% occupied in September, 2001. The 1940's crash of an airplane into the Empire State Building was certainly big news, but certainly not any reason to make radical Gov't policy changes. The perps probably (correctly, in my view and that of many, many others) figured that a mere plane crash or two planes crashing into the WTC wouldn't be enough to rally necessary political and public support for what they wanted to accomplish. They knew that a plane crash and the fires that might well result would not cause the kind of damage/action needed for "shock and awe".