I Don't Visit This Forum - But I Know It Exists - I Have A Comment That I Know Won't Make It ......

[global1]

on the main forum so I felt that I needed to put it here.

While with some relatives a couple of weeks ago - we got engaged in a discussion of the torture issue and I made the point that everything we suspected going on with our government during the Bush administration is now all beginning to unravel and we're beginning to learn the truth. The lies that got us into the war. The torture. etc.

Somehow the discussion got around to 9/11 and I asked the group how many buildings fell that day. I was astonished to find out that I was the only one of 9 people that knew that 3 buildings fell that day. No one else heard about Building 7. I told them about it and told them all to check out the videos that are on the internet showing the building pancaking as if it were imploded.

From there I brought up PNAC and 'a new Pearl Harbor' and no one heard about that either.

I then went further and came out and said I never believed the official story of the events of that day and always suspected something else was going on and that maybe somehow our government was involved in those happenings.

My (87y/o) uncle in disbelief said emphatically - NO - the government wouldn't do something like that - they wouldn't be behind something like that. Some of my other younger relatives & cousins weren't so definite about that and said that maybe they could believe that something like that could occur. Anyway - before the conversation got any more out of hand - we ended it with the comment that people should begin doing some research on the Internet and draw their own conclusions.

As for me - I believe what I believe - and I don't believe the official story. And everyday more and more info comes out about torture and the start of the war; Rumsfeld's biblical verses to the president; Cheney's energy talks; the Valerie Plame outing; etc, etc, etc - and we are beginning to see how we were lied to and manipulated since the SCOTUS decision back in 2000 started everything rolling. Workers in the BushCo Administration are beginning to come out of the woodwork - doing some backpedaling; whistleblowing; and truth telling.

I also see how the Obama Administration wants to move forward and put the past behind. I don't agree - but - to me this is part of the whole puzzle of the last 8 to 9 years.

Today I read on the main forum in DU about the White House E-mails and the decision that was made to keep the Bush E-mails private. One of the responders to that post responded with this:

"What are they afraid of? Why all this covering-up of torture, emails, Iraq invasion, CIA lying, DOJ malfeasance, etc.etc.etc.
What are they afraid of? :shrug:"

Here's the link to that thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3883639

Check it out for yourself.

I wanted to put this post in the main forum and respond to - "What are they afraid of?"

I beginning to believe that they are afraid to let the whole truth come out that 9/11 was something more than what we were led to believe.

I think they are afraid of a collective reaction from the American people - like that of my Uncle above - that - NO - our government couldn't/wouldn't do something like that or be behind something like that.

When I saw the look on my Uncle's face when the thought of our government being behind something like 9/11 - I now know why it is probably important - IF - such a thing was sanctioned in some way by our government - either LIHOP - MIHOP or some other HOP - that the truth would need to be suppressed - lest the people lose all faith in their government and quite possibly in fellow mankind.

Now - I don't necessarily agree.

I feel that if our government was somehow involved in LIHOP - MIHOP - whatever - that the truth needs to come out. But I saw on my Uncle's face something that I think would be harder to deal with than that truth and that was real "FEAR" not the contrived 'fear' that we were provided by 9/11 and everything that followed.

I really think if something like this came out - it would kill him. I sit back now and say - do we really want to connect all the dots - or are some dots better left unconnected?

We're talking real "FEAR" here if the dots are connected.

All the kings horses and all the kings men - couldn't put Humpty together again kind of "FEAR".

[Bolo Boffin]

1. I can see some good come out of this, then

When your family members do look into this and see that your expressed opinions on 9/11 are based on badly interpreted and even made up evidence, they will see that as bad as this situation is, it could be a hell of a lot worse and isn't.

That will give them the knowledge that we can change this situation for the better.

And the only bad thing is that you will be less likely to convince them of anything because you believe such rot, but perhaps you too will see the error of your way.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com
http://911guide.googlepages.com
http://www.debunking911.com
http://www.911myths.com
http://wtc.nist.gov

Also, my little unfinished site:

http://ae911truth.info

[Subdivisions]

4. Your opinion on what happened that day is slanted severely to the

official conspiracy theory. And since the OP is seeking something which you cannot provide, advising the OP to follow your lead undermines his desire to find the actual truth. If, as I and millions of others believe, the truth of 9/11 is being covered up and that is eventually borne out, then that would mean that everything you espouse is also wrong.

So, if one is to assume that there's more to the 9/11 story than what we're being led to believe and that the official conspiracy theory is wrong, then one can also assume that any information you impart is also wrong and is based on information meant to divert from the truth - and therefore no more worth research consideration than the OCT itself.

I suggest the OP's family begin with PNAC and its membership and work their way out from there, connecting the dots and following the money.

Edited to add: OP, for background also advise your family to take a real close look at the history of the bush family including Prescott Bush's connection to Hitler and the Nazis, George H. Bush's intelligence and presidential record, the 2000 coup, and the presidency of george w. bush. Also, take a look at the business dealings of oil and oil field services companies, primarily Dick Cheney's Haliburton (as well as Kellog Brown & Root (KBR)) and "Big Oil", Dick Cheney's secret energy meetings, Dick Cheney himself, and the circumstances that led to the invasion of Iraq. Then have them research the history of false-flag attacks including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax">Operation Ajax, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods">Operation Northwoods, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident">The Gulf of Tonkin, among others. Also see what structural engineers think about 9/11 at http://www.ae911truth.org">Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Also, look at Osama Bin Laden's involvement with the CIA, the USS Cole bombing, and the history of Al Quaeda.

Lastly, for now, have them investigate the activities at the World Trade Center in the weeks and days leading up to the attacks, including the fact that Marvin Bush (george w. bush's brother) was a pricipal in Securacom, a security company in charge of security that day at the WTC, Dulles Airport, and United Airlines. Then, also have them take a look at everything that's happened since the attacks. If you need more lines of research, just PM me. I'll be glad to help.

global1, please note that I didn't give you links to any 9/11 sites. 9/11 sites come in two flavors, one being those that espouse the official conspiracy theory and those that believe that the truth is being convered up and call for a new investigation. Citing links to either camp, as bolo has done with his links to official conspiracy theory sites, will influence your conclusions, which you should come to yourself based on your research.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. ...actual evidence. Yes, I know.

Perhaps you could look into that instead of relying on fantasies to explain the evidence away.

[Subdivisions]

9. Clarification:

I just realized that, though I stated that I had not included links to biased sites, I did include the link to ae911truth.org. Balanced research should exclude visiting this site or should include a site biased toward the official conspiracy theory, such as 911myths.com cited by bolo above.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Teaching the controversy.

That's so balanced and scientific of you, Sub.

[Subdivisions]

11. Oh, I'm sorry I made you cry. Here's a tissue. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Keep it. You'll need it to print your 9/11 CT bible. n/t

[Subdivisions]

13. Should be plenty of room to print '9/11 was an inside job.' Thanks! =^) n/t

[Realityhack]

42. That sound is Bolo's point going over your head n/t

[SDuderstadt]

15. "including the fact that Marvin Bush (george w. bush's brother) was a pricipal in Securacom

a security company in charge of security that day at the WTC"

This is just one of the many factual inaccuracies you peddle on an ongoing basis. Securacom was NOT "in charge of security" at the WTC, that would actually be the Port Authority of New York and the WTC itself (does the name John O'Neill mean anything to you?). It is a gross misstatement of fact to claim that Securacom was in charge of any security when what they actually did was to provide some security systems, not physical security.

And while it makes it sound real sinister to mention Marvin Bush's connection to the company, you omitted any mention of the fact that Bush cycled off the board after June of 2000. Which gets me to my real problem with the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement". They tantalize us with all these promises of smoking guns, only to actually deliver something so poorly researched and analyzed as to be laughable. The bigger issue is watching in amazement as "truthers" not only don't bother to fact-check these things but, rather, rush forward to embrace them and evangelize without even so much as critically examining them.

In my opinion, this belies their real mission: start with the conclusion you want to embrace, then work backwards to bolster it with "quote-mining", statements taken totally out of context, partial accounts that omit evidence that undermines their own claim and sundry other intellectually dishonest gambits. Of course, when debunkers point out such obvious and deliberate misrepresentations, "truthers" then kick into high gear and wage such rhetorical tactics as accusing their worthy opponents of "supporting Bushco" and/or "defending the 'official story'". I don't believe the "official story" got it right, but it's far better than the thinly sourced, poorly reasoned histrionics of the "truth movement". Which is why the "truth movement" is rapidly dying on the vine.

[Subdivisions]

16. How do you REALLY know for sure about any of what you say? Because the government

says so? In case you haven't noticed, it's the government's veracity that the truth movement has found in question here. If they are lying, then everything you espouse with regard to 9/11 is invalid, including Marvin Bush's and Securacom's degree of involvement on 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Bad news, dude....

my source for the information about Bush and Securacom isn't the government. Do you even bother to read the links I supply? That would spare you from making a lot of stupid mistakes. Your tactic of trying to discredit anything that contradicts your pet theory by somehow linking it to the "government" isn't working, dude. I am also more than a little distressed at your anti-government posture. Maybe you should join a militia.

ETA: I just realized I forgot to post the link to the source of the Bush and Securacom info. It's:

http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

How you confuse that with the "government" is beyond me.

[Subdivisions]

18. I'm not "anti-government". I'm anti-criminal-government, which is what

bush's government was. A criminal government, through and through (ETA: Of course, there were good people in that government and administration but there were those at every level who were not). Therefore, anything they produced is questionable. As for joining a militia, not going to happen, although I do believe in the 2nd Amendment as a means to protect ourselves against a government that has turned on its citizens. Has that happened to the degree that I believe calls for the activation of a citizen militia(s)? Of course not. And, I myself don't like guns and haven't owned one since I was a teenager.

ETA-2 - Ok, I've read your link and it's inconclusive. Do you know how covert operations work, duder? Even though Marvin Bush was no longer an official of the company, that doesn't mean that he wasn't still somehow an operative. A new investigation could bear that out in a more conclusive way.

Also, I did a WHOIS search on 911myths.com. Funny that the primary owners are not listed and that the domain is registered at DomainsByProxy.com, which specializes in domain registration privacy. They even market themselves as a service by which one's identity can remain secret. From their homepage:

Did you know that for each domain name you register, anyone -
anywhere, anytime - can find out your name, home address, phone
number and email address?

The law requires that the personal information you provide with every
domain you register be made public in the "WHOIS" database. Your
identity becomes instantly available - and vulnerable - to spammers,
scammers, prying eyes and worse.

But now there's a solution: Domains By Proxy®!

http://www.domainsbyproxy.com">LINK

And the WHOIS record, such as it is:

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: www.dynonames.com
Domain Name: 911MYTHS.COM
Created on: 13-Jan-05
Expires on: 13-Jan-16
Last Updated on: 07-Oct-07

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration [e-mail]
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
[phone]

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration [e-mail]
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
[phone]

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.911MYTHS.COM
NS2.911MYTHS.COM


The previous information has been obtained either directly from the registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions. Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.

Show underlying registry data for this record



Current Registrar: WILD WEST DOMAINS, INC.
IP Address: 72.52.233.160 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
IP Location: US(UNITED STATES)
Record Type: Domain Name
Server Type: Apache 1
Lock Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Web Site Status: Active
DMOZ no listings
Y! Directory: see listings
Web Site Title: 911Myths
Secure: No
E-commerce: Yes
Traffic Ranking: 3
Data as of: 22-Apr-2008

If the creators of 911myths.com are so sure of the information contained on their website, why hide behind a proxy domain? Also, could 911myths.com be a CIA (or other covert entity) operation and dis-info vehicle? I don't see why not. And, the fact that the owners choose to remain in the shadows is, at the very least, the very first indication that they may not be a creidble source of information and that their information may also be just as shadowy as the site's owners.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Here's a more likely reason, dude...

have you ever seen some of the scary death threats some "truthers" have issued to anyone who dares disagree with them?

As to your first point, do you think members of the board of directors get involved in the day-to-day operations of the company? Do you have any evidence at all that Marvin Bush has engaged in anything remotely like what you're claiming?

Here's the bottom line: people are tiring of the wild-eyed claims of the "truth movement" and their apparent inability to put a coherent, cohesive alternative strategy or back up their goofy claims with solid evidence. Get back to us when you have an actual smoking gun rather than merely a cap pistol.

[Subdivisions]

20. Soldiers believe in what they are doing and are willing to die for it. I suppose

that makes your shadowy 911myths.com operators cowards.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Oh, fuck...

tell me something...who is "the Anonymous Physicist"?

[Subdivisions]

24. You have a point, there's anonymity on boths side of the issue. I digress. n/t

Ed. spelling. I hate the there/they're/theirs

[greyl]

22. Your lame "concerns" are addressed at 911myths.com.

The creator offers his name and location, and has for years. He's a lefty.
Besides that, you should evaluate any claims based on their own merit instead of imagining reasons to dismiss hundreds of pages of information and links that help cut through the rampant disinformation pumped out by the 911 Truth Industry.

edit, from the site:

You have my real name and an email address, so it’s not exactly anonymous. The only extra information you would get if I hadn’t registered 911myths.com by proxy is my home address. And would you happily post your address online, in the middle of a heated and vitriolic 9/11 debate? Neither would I, which is why I chose to protect that.

If you still feel that’s wrong, then perhaps you’d like to consider some of the other sites with registration records that don’t point to someone’s name or home address (and there are plenty more):

911truth.org - registered via proxy
physics911.net - registered via proxy
loosechange911.com - registrant company name only
fromthewilderness.com - registrant company name only
st911.org - private registration

Although of course I’m sure I’ll receive an email very soon explaining why it’s entirely different when these sites do it...

[Subdivisions]

23. Well...

Who are you?

I'm Eric Walters, an airline captain and private pilot from Tuscaloosa, AL.

-snip-

-------------------

You believe me, don't you?

[greyl]

25. Well, why don't you just change the subject, then. :) nt

[Subdivisions]

26. I haven't changed the subject. I've just demonstrated that, just as Mike Williams

can claim that is his name and that he's a software engineer from the UK, I can say what my name and profession is too. But does merely stating it make it so? Not in the case of my post above. So, how can I know that there really is a Mike Williams who's a software engineer in the UK and it's not a propaganda element being used by someone who has employed a pseudonym? I can't and neither can you.

[greyl]

27. Yeah, you sort of are.

I said "you should evaluate any claims based on their own merit". I wasn't talking about claims of identity, I was talking about claims about the events of 9/11.

I see upthread you've already admitted that there is anonymity on both sides. That should be the end of the discussion, really.

Back to providing evidence for relevant claims...

[SDuderstadt]

28. Jesus...

then quit yammering about Mike Williams supposedly hiding behind an anonymous domain. I'm not sure anyone cares if you believe Mike Williams is who he says he is or not.

[Subdivisions]

29. Is he? n/t

[rschop]

32. RE: The web site 911myths.com

I checked out 911myths.com, and here is what I found:

On July 26, 2001, cbsnews.com reported that John Ashcroft had stopped flying on commercial airlines.

Ashcroft used to fly commercial, just as Janet Reno did. So why, two months before Sept. 11, did he start taking chartered government planes?

CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart asked the Justice Department.

Because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI, he was told. But "neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ... would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it," CBS News reported.

The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances

From the 9/11 Commission public hearing on April 14, 2004:

Then on this web site:

Something else you won’t read on most sites is Ashcroft’s own response to this, before the 9/11 Commission:

BEN-VENISTE: ...At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?

ASHCROFT: ...Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.

But he clearly put out a press statement that said he would fly only on private aircraft for the remained of his term, after the main stream news media found he was no longer flying commercial aircraft due to an "unspecified threat assessment by the FBI".

But what the American people and the two rows of families that had lost their relatives on 9/11 that sat right behind Ashcroft at this hearing wanted to hear was, what was the unspecified FBI threat that Ashcroft had received and had been reported by CBS news and that had made Ashcroft so terrified of an aircraft hijacking that he immediately stopped in the latter part of July 2001 from flying on commercial aircraft inside of the US. They didn’t want to hear some weasel worded excuse that he really was not afraid to fly on US aircraft. And why hadn't he warned the American people of this threat so they could stay safe also?

We now know that on July 10, 2001 George Tenet and Cofer Black briefed Rice and Clarke in the White House and told them a massive al Qaeda attacks was about to take place inside of the US, that would kill thousands of Americans. This was reported by Bob Woodward in his book, “State of Denial”. Rice not only brushed off this news but then asked Tenet and Black to brief AG Ashcroft and Secretary of the Defense, Rumsfeld, apparently unable or more likely unwilling to do anything about this huge al Qaeda threat herself, which they did a week later. This would have been on or about July 17, 2001.

So now we know that Ashcroft quits flying on US commercial aircraft right after getting this horrific briefing from the top managers at the CIA on this massive al Qaeda terrorist threat. But even more telling is that in over 7 ½ years no one has ever come forward to tell the American people exactly what was this “unspecified threat from the FBI" that the press release from Ashcroft’s office had described. The dots are starting to come together.

But this cover up gets worst!

The question was asked by no other then Richard Ben Venista. And he clearly knew that Ashcroft had not answered the question that all American wanted an answer for. What was this unspecified threat from the FBI when just 6 weeks later al Qaeda terrorists hijacked 4 aircraft and killed almost 3000 Americans? Could these two events be linked somehow?

But we now know that it was Ben Venista that was at the an official 9/11 Commission meeting with Tenet, and Zelikow where Tenet described the July 10, 2001 meeting with Rice and Clarke and the meetings with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld a week later. And it was Ben Venista who also knew this information had been deliberately “left out” of the 9/11 Commission report when this report was published in June of 2004.

So it is now also clear Ben Venista knew why Ashcroft quit flying on US commercial aircraft when he asked this question at the April 14, 2004, public 9/11 Commission hearings, and even knew that Ashcroft was misleading and evasive in his answer. Even when he knew Ashcroft had not answered the real question, he never followed up and said, "John we, the 9/11 Commissioners and the Americans people want to know; "what was that unspecified threat from the FBI that was so horrific that you started taking only private aircraft on AG business in late July?"

It wasn’t that Ashcroft was actually lying, it was he was misdirecting his answer to a question that had not even been asked; Did you only fly on private aircraft in the summer of 2001 for official AJ business? And it is now also clear that the flights Ashcroft took on commercial aircraft were for vacations with his wife, flights he would never have been allowed to have taken on private aircraft at taxpayers’ expense, and on flights that were in large part outside of the US.

But then it gets even worse, yes indeed, far worse!.

John Ashcroft was the Attorney General of the United States, in charge of the Justice Department that also was over the FBI. If he knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans why did he not order the FBI to find these terrorists before they carried out any terrorist attack?

It even turns that that at the time Ashcroft was told of this massive al Qaeda attack inside of the US, even his own FBI people were already aware that very dangerous al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US. One of his key employees, Tom Wilshire, had been moved over from Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit to be liaison to Michael Rolince, the head of the ITOS unit. This is the unit it turns out we now know controlled all FBI criminal investigations in the world.

Tom Wilshire already knew on July 17, 2001 when Ashcroft was told about the al Qaeda attack on the US, that a very dangerous long time al Qaeda terrorist, Nawaf al-Hazmi, had already entered the US, and knew his travel companion , Khalid al-Mihdhar, had a multi-entry visa for the US that specified New York City as his destination. Wilshire even knew as did much of the CIA that Mihdhar and Hazmi had attended a al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid Bin Attash, actually planning the Cole bombing. In fact this information was known by FBI HQ Agent Diana Corsi, and CIA officer Clark Shannon when they attended a meeting Wilshire set in New York City with the FBI Cole bombing investigators, on June 11, 2001. It now appears they all had been instructed, most likely by Wilshire, to keep this information secret from the FBI Cole bombing criminal investigators at this meeting.

Wilshire and Corsi, now famous in contemporary literature, knew that their actions in shutting down the only investigation, the investigation on Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, that could have found both Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to prevent the al Qaeda attack the FBI HQ and CIA knew they were going to part in, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans. Since Wilshire had been denied many times from providing this information to the FBI, the very information that could have prevented these attacks, and many people at the FBI HQ also knew that FBI Agent Corsi was criminally blocking the investigation of Mihdhar by Bongardt, it is clear that the conspiracy that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take placed went well beyond either Corsi and Wilshire and included almost all of the top management at the CIA, many of the middle managers at the FBI, and even directors of the FBI.

Even John Ashcroft’s own director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, had been aware, as well as almost all of the top management of the CIA and FBI, that Mihdhar and Hazmi had attended an important al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, and then all had intentionally refused to give this information to FBI Agent Ali Soufan when asked by this agent in official requests, committing what we all now know were in fact criminal acts.

As reported in another thread, on this blog, the Official story of 9/11 is "almost entirely untrue"-"There Was An Agreement NOT To Tell The Truth". This information and these dots that have been connected not only confirms this but indicates that the top managers of the FBI and CIA, including AJ Ashcroft and even some of the 9/11 Commissioners were actually in on the agreement NOT to tell the truth, when they all had actually been sworn to tell the truth the, whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[billac]

33. I never knew all of this. Thank you for this post.

Before we all give up the ghost, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a real investigation?

[wildbilln864]

34. welcome to the DUngeon! nt

:hi:

[Subdivisions]

39. Welcome, billac! n/t

[Kalun D]

60. There has already been a real independent investigation

and it's ongoing.

Read it for yourself

Complete 911 Timeline

It's available in printed version also

The Terror Timeline

[Subdivisions]

40. More background:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0420-10.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/06/03/hsorensen.DTL

I'm looking for the actual press statement. If anyone finds it, plese post it.

[rschop]

45. Thanks Subdinisions for the links

It is now more than clear that Ashcroft quit flying commercial after he was warned on July 17, 2001, by CIA managers Tenet and Black of a massive al Qaeda attacks just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. But while Woodward peels back some of the covers on this information he failed to find out exactly what was it that so scared Ashcroft that he felt even his own aircraft would be hijacked. These warnings must have been specific enough to alert Ashcroft to the possiblity that his own aircraft could be hijacked. But we have never been given this information, ever, even 7 1/2 years after the attacks on 9/11.

Don't the American people deserve an answer to this question, and don't the families that lost relatives on 9/11 deserve to know why the US government deliberately and intentionally allowed their relatives to be killed on 9/11?

Just today, on May 21, 2009, in a speech that has been widely reported on by main stream media Dick Cheney said "it is our intelligence agencies that keep us safe from terrorists attacks".

But on 9/11 it was the CIA management hierarchy that had ordered the CIA Bin Laden unit, the Yemen CIA station, and the CIA handler for the FBI/CIA joint source to hide all information on the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing. This was the meeting where both the Cole bombing and the attacks on 9/11 had been planned.

Even the director of the FBI Louis Freeh had hidden this information from FBI Agent Ali Soufan when Soufan made an official request to him in November 2000. And even worse it was people at the CIA Bin Laden unit, including CIA deputy chief Tom Wilshire, and agents at the FBI UBL(Bin Laden unit) including FBI IOS Agent Dine Corsi, that shut down FBI Agent Steven Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, even when they knew that by doing so thousands of Americans were going to perish in an imminent al Qaeda terrorist attack about to take place inside of the US. Since Wilshire had been forbidden several times by his CIA managers including, Richard B.,the head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, head of CIA CTC, and George Tenet, Director of the CIA from giving this information to the FBI, and many people at FBI HQ knew Corsi was sabotaging Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar, it is now clear this horrific criminal conspiracy to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out their attack on 9/11 went way beyond both Wilshire and Corsi.

When Cheney says that it is our own intelligence agencies that will keep us safe he clearly overlooks the fact that it was the very people at the CIA and FBI HQ that had deliberately, and intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the horrific attacks on 9/11 that killed almost 3000 Americans, a fact that must be by now all but an open secret in Washington DC.

[Subdivisions]

47. So bolo, duder, greyl, azcat, theobald, dithers, seger, lared... anyone?

What prompted Ashcroft to stop flying on commercial aircraft in July, 2001. What was the unspecified threat?

[rschop]

48. Question for Kevin Fenton, Paul Thompson, in fact anyone

The same question posed in prior post for Kevin Fenton, Paul Thompson, and in fact anyone that may have insight into this issue:

What prompted AJ John Ashcroft to stop flying on commercial aircraft in July, 2001 on AJ business? What was the unspecified threat given to him by the FBI? Or was this Ashcroft's bull shit to hide the fact he had been warned of a huge al Qaeda attack by CIA Director Tenet and CTC manager Cofer Black on July 17, 2001.

Good call Subdivision, posing questions on the internet in an attempt to find out what really went on prior to the attacks on 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. How about you, Subdivisions?

You got anything besides speculation?

Seems like the only people who know what was in that briefing was Ashcroft and the people who wrote it up and briefed him on it. Why don't you ask them?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Subdivisions]

55. LMAO!!!

Then unless more information appears, this story really doesn't look like it's going anywhere.

So now, why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial? Perhaps the "more information" we need will make this Ashcroft angle go somewhere, eh?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. Fear of the truth should never be a reason to stop seeking the truth...

It's one thing for a person to say something like "well, if my spouse *is* cheating on me, I don't want to know about it"... that doesn't affect anyone but the ones involved in the relationship. However, the truth of whether or not our government murdered 3000 citizens affects us all, and the truth *needs* to be known.

Peace,

Ghost

[wildbilln864]

35. a Patrick Henry quote...

"..what ever anguish of spirt it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it."

[Ohio Joe]

3. I think you gave them some good advice

There is never anything wrong with having questions or wanting to know the truth. I also don't see anything wrong with looking at as many videos as one wants to from the internet. I would only give one word of caution, do not take anything in an internet video as gospel (good general advice for internet videos regardless of topic, IMHO). I think internet videos can be a good introduction to many topics, including 9/11 but to really get to the truth, more research is required. I might even suggest giving them a link to this forum (as well as the DU front page), there is a wealth of information here to wade through.

[BeFree]

5. And

Even better advice, do not take anything that Bushco says as gospel, like so many have done.

Once you examine the facts surrounding Bushco and their hiding of information about 9/11, and the facts that they were unable to hide and are now coming out, no one can say that the OCT is anywhere near the truth. Well, NO ONE who is being honest.

[Ohio Joe]

6. Personally...

There are only maybe... 5 or 6 people in the world that I trust anything they say.

[able1]

31. Sorry to have to say it, but boy is that ever true,

"Once you examine the facts surrounding Bushco and their hiding of information about 9/11, and the facts that they were unable to hide and are now coming out, no one can say that the OCT is anywhere near the truth. Well, NO ONE who is being honest."

[rschop]

7. RE: We're talking real "FEAR" here if the dots are connected.

The most complete story on 9/11 is summarized at the web site www.eventson911.com. This site also has almost all of the source documents that back up this story.

All of the source materials on this site are now publically available information located on the US governments own web sites and sources. It turns out there was enough information on the internet to put the complete story of 9/11 back together again, it just took some time and effort.

The source materials on this web site comes from the following locations:

The Account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, taken from the New Yorker July 17, 2006 issue, the former FBI Agent now testifying in front of congress this week on torture, the Department Of Justice Inspector General’s Report on the performance of the FBI prior to 9/11, the material entered into the trail of Moussaoui and the testimony given to the US DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002 by Sherry Sabol the attorney FBI Agent Dina Corsi consulted prior to taking the investigation of Mihdhar away from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, testimony found on page 538 of the 9/11 Commission report.

The material from the Moussaoui trail came from the government web site located at: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

NOTE be prepared to be completely stunned by the material on just this one site!

The account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan comes from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, Ali Soufan’s assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, and was given to author Lawrence Wright and vetted by John Miller information officer at the FBI prior to being published in the New Yorker and the book Looming Tower which won a Pulitzer prize in 2007, and can be considered the official account of the FBI prior to that attacks on 9/11.

A complete summary of what had occurred prior to the attacks on 9/11 is also available so you and anyone can see what had occurred that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place when the CIA and FBI HQ had the names of three of the al Qaeda terrorists for over 21 months and deliberately hid this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, even after Walid Bin Attash, known to be one of the masterminds of the Cole bombing, was identified on January 4, 2001 from a photograph taken at this meeting, the exact same meeting attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, and knew at that point that all three had planned the Cole bombing at this meeting.

The CIA and FBI HQ even kept this information secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators after August 22, 2001, when the CIA and FBI HQ Agents found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were found to be inside of the US, and knew they were here in order to take part in horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill thousands of Americans. See “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, in particular the July 23, 2001 email he sent back to his managers at the CIA where he said that Khalid al-Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack, an attack that by this date the CIA knew was going to take place inside of the US.

The CIA and the FBI HQ agents working with the CIA even knew their actions to block FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team from investigating and starting a search for Mihdhar and Hazmi, would likely result in the deaths thousands of Americans who would perish in these attacks.

The documents that are the iron clad proof of this along with the analysis to connect all of the dots together are located right on this site, and which is summarized at the bottom of this web site.

When you said: "We're talking real "FEAR" here if the dots are connected.", you have a real good point!

[Kalun D]

36. Beeee Essss

The most complete story on 9/11 is summarized at the web site...when the CIA and FBI HQ Agents found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were found to be inside of the US, and knew they were here in order to take part in horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

this post is a distraction from the truth

Any Arabs involved were just patsies

911 was an inside job

MIHOP all the way

[bottomtheweaver]

38. Yes.

Whenever somebody starts sniffing KSM's underwear you know you're in psy-op land.

[rschop]

41. RE: BS

Then give us a link to the truth, as you call it.

[Kalun D]

58. The Terror Timeline

Complete 911 Timeline

[jakeXT]

14. Why not visit it ? Is it the quality, quantity of the posts, the posters here or none of it ?

[CJCRANE]

30. Acceptance of the truth about 9/11 is a process that will take time.

And the people who will be the most angry are the authoritarian-followers because they will feel totally betrayed.

But 9/11 will be a distant memory by that time (at least that's what the neocons are hoping).

ed: sp

[bottomtheweaver]

37. I think it's hardest for oldsters to admit.

I explained the whole 911 thing to my mom a few years back and it depressed her so badly I wish I hadn't. She gets her news from TV and loves Bill O'Reily so how is somebody like that going to deal with the fact that everything she thinks she knows is a lie? In her case, I let her think it's a crazy internet rumor, although it isn't. If I know one thing with 100% absolute metaphysical certainty, it's that the Trade Center was brought down with explosives, and I'm nearly as certain that they used nukes. But not everybody's ready to deal with that.

[Echo In Light]

43. Yes, especially males who were indoctrinated into a much more macho, authoritarian mindset...

...that was far more prevalent a generation or two ago than in recent times. It creates that attitude of blind faith in and obedience to established, do-as-I-say power structures. By default it's "unAmerican," or, really, more "girlie," feminine (from that perspective) to raise questions that cast the power structures in negative light.

I've come to the same conclusion re the many discussions I've had over the yrs w/co-workers, extended family, strangers, etc...generally the only people who strongly oppose any inside job angle are middle aged or older men who simply dismiss unwelcome data out of hand as "namby-pamby-blah-blah" in typical Archie Bunker fashion.

[End Of The Road]

57. It's NOT an age thing.

I work in an office with men and women 30 years younger than I, and none of them are interested in the many anomalies of 9/11. It's not even on their radar.

When I need a down-and-dirty discussion about 9/11, I call my brother. We're both seniors.

Get over it.

[truedelphi]

52. I know that I am a person who is totally dubious about everything,

And I was one of the first people to "get" that our elections were rigged, but yet it took an entire afternoon of a friend playing the video about the WTC 7, over and over, before I would accept that this was all MIHOP. (Before that day I thought it was LIHOP or really bad connections between NORAD's mission to defend us and some strange circumstances.)

So I can only imagine that people who grew up back in the days when our nation seemed to act with a conscience, and even fought wars on account of self defense, that it would be most difficult to get anywhere.

[bottomtheweaver]

54. It took me about four years to figure out.

I had a pal at an online building forum who kept posting links to Alex Jones and insisting there were bombs in the basement etc etc, and everybody thought he was nuts including me, until one day I realized that those towers couldn't possibly have collapsed as a result of planes, fires, or anything else save tremendously powerful explosives, as they were basically indestructible. Now it's hard to believe I didn't realize it on 911, although apparently a lot of people did.

[truedelphi]

56. I have heard that some 67 % of all New York City inhabitants do NOT

Accept the official theory. After all, they HEARD the explosions before the buildings came down.

Or they knew someone who heard the explosions.

[vincent_vega_lives]

62. until one day

"I realized that those towers couldn't possibly have collapsed as a result of planes, fires, or anything else save tremendously powerful explosives, as they were basically indestructible."

What happened to you that particular day that you suddenly lost the ability to think critically? Even the most cursory research will show the reasons for the collapse and that the towers, like ANY man made structure are FAR from "indestructible".

[bottomtheweaver]

63. Thanks, Captain O.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fWLtJmEhLG0/SWy4IyP3_yI/AAAAAAAADVs/uUcTL59byyc/s400/captain+obvious.jpg

Obviously, they were destroyed, but they were indestructible by natural or accidental causes, and were designed to be, as are most if not all US highrises. That's why they don't fall down when they burn, even when they're totally gutted, as was the case for example with One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia:

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. huh, thats funny

That's why they don't fall down when they burn, even when they're totally gutted, as was the case for example with One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia:

I don't recall the One Meridian Plaza being hit BY A FUCKING AIRLINER, that took out a portion of the building's structural supports (perimeter columns), stripped critical fireproofing off core columns, cut the sprinkler lines, and dispersed thousands of gallons of jet fuel throughout several floors.

But ya, other than that, buildings don't fall down when they burn.

[bottomtheweaver]

65. None of that occurred on the 80 or 90 floors below the fires.

Very little of it occurred period, but that's another story. Even if we assumed it all did, the planes severed only a fraction of the 236 perimeter columns and fewer if any of the 47 core columns, and the other events would have only contributed to the fires on those floors, not beneath them. And since the buildings were not constructed out of wood or masonry (bricks) the idea of a progressive collapse is ridiculous. And yes, I've studied the gigantic and disorganized NIST report, and ridiculous is putting it mildly. Shameful would be a better word. Criminally deceptive would not be an exaggeration.

[vincent_vega_lives]

66. Nope, and it didnt' need to

Very little of it occurred period

Not even sure what that means.

the planes severed only a fraction of the 236 perimeter columns and fewer if any of the 47 core columns,

Yes but more importantly they were all contiguous, and more importantly compromised the core's fire resistance ability by damaging sprinklers, drywall and spray-on.

And since the buildings were not constructed out of wood or masonry (bricks) the idea of a progressive collapse is ridiculous.

Not sure what significance you are attributing to wood or masonry (thanks for that definition) as the WTC towers were hardly monolithic constructs. They were a balanced structure that depended on each component maintaining their integrity. What's ridiculous is expecting the buildings not to collapse once the top 20 floors fell onto the floors below.

[bottomtheweaver]

67. Groan.

Have it your way, Captain. Too many misconceptions there to know where to start. :hi:

[vincent_vega_lives]

68. rightbackatcha (n/t)

[defendandprotect]

44. It's not whether waking up Americans would "kill them" . . .

it's about how quickly America will collapse and Global Warming will kill most of us

if Americans don't soon wake up!!!

Otherwise great post - back later.

[aldo]

46. So what are you saying, that the people just can't handle democracy?

Many fascists would agree with you.

[Kalun D]

59. the PTB

I feel that if our government was somehow involved in LIHOP - MIHOP - whatever - that the truth needs to come out. But I saw on my Uncle's face something that I think would be harder to deal with than that truth and that was real "FEAR" not the contrived 'fear' that we were provided by 9/11 and everything that followed.

If a majority in America figured out that 911 was an inside job there would be something approaching open revolt. A demand for real investigations and convictions of the real perpetrators. It would be a huge disruption for the powers that be and to all their plans for the present and future. That's why it will never be allowed to happen.

The reason for the look on your Uncles face is because he's suddenly presented with a scenario where he would have to be part of the revolt. It's disquieting and disrupting to most people. They don't want to think about it because it means they would be forced to take action.

[Kalun D]

61. Why is that?

""Somehow the discussion got around to 9/11 and I asked the group how many buildings fell that day. I was astonished to find out that I was the only one of 9 people that knew that 3 buildings fell that day. No one else heard about Building 7""

ask yourself why most people haven't heard about building 7?

Because most people get their "news" from the TV?

And the TV doesn't talk about building 7 to any great extent?

Because if they did it would lead to the conclusion that

911 was an inside job

and the people that own the TV just don't want that to happen

Orwell was prescient, he wasn't even that far off on the year.

the TV is their tool, turn it off, or at least be aware