"Your failure to be informed does not make me a wacko."

--John Loeffler


http://www.infowars.com/tyranny.htm

quote:

"THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS WHITEWASHING AND LYING ABOUT WHAT
REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT. 11 911: THE ROAD TO TYRANNY IS
SHAKING THE FOUNDATIONS OF WASHINGTON DC AS THE MOST
COMPREHENSIVE AND REVEALING DOCUMENTARY FILM COVERING WHAT
REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT. 11 AND WHO STANDS TO GAIN."

Watch Alex Jones' film 9/11: The Road to Tyranny. The
entire film can be downloaded and watched here:

------>http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/the_road_to_tyranny__34kbps_.rm<-------


[Edited on April 1, 2004 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ..]

4/1/2004 10:37:09 AM

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.phphttp://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php


I'll watch the video when you provide it in a format that will not damage my computer. I refuse to damage my computer.

4/1/2004 11:14:49 AM

what's the matter, son, can't think of a witty response to my PM?

4/2/2004 7:11:59 AM

He only responds if you don't ask anything challenging or if you don't talk about how wrong he is and/or provide evidence.

4/2/2004 8:56:04 AM

Send him a meaningless fancy quote to go along with your challenge. Maybe you can fool him into responding.

4/2/2004 9:24:29 AM

Leak: U.S. knew of Sept. 11 plans (Washington Post article):

source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040402-064359-3845r.htm

quote:

"WASHINGTON, April 2 (UPI) -- The U.S. administration knew of al-Qaida
plans to target buildings with planes months before the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001, a former FBI translator claims.

Sibel Edmonds, a former translator for the FBI with top-secret security
clearance says she spent three hours giving testimony to the panel
investigating the attacks, and told Britain's Independent Friday information
was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 an attack
using aircraft was months away and the terrorists were in place.

She rejected national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's claim there
was no such knowledge as "an outrageous lie.""

[Edited on April 2, 2004 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ..]

4/2/2004 2:01:31 PM

source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514

quote:

'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'

Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
02 April 2004

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she
has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks
which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with
aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that
there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with
the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within
the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using
aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush
administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a
gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of
specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific
managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they
could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are
documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about
methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and
about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks.
There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities ­ with skyscrapers."

The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks
Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether
the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was
sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official,
who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.

...

She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring
and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of
what I told the commission ­ 90 per cent of it ­ related to the investigations
that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred
translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September
and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said.
There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and
that an attack was just months away.

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration
did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The
Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have
suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to
attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts
speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous
lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the
FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is
impossible."

It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some
senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public
with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption
within the FBI's translation department.

[Edited on April 2, 2004 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ..]

4/2/2004 2:16:55 PM

Archive of mainstream media news articles related to the 9/11 attacks (massive number of links):

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

[Edited on April 2, 2004 at 3:00 PM. Reason : ..]

4/2/2004 2:59:42 PM

It can't be a missile in the video. The warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

Quote :

"Pentagon officials cancel flights for Sept. 11th on Sept. 10th, 2001 (MSNBC article): --> see 5th paragraph from the bottom"

Why would they cancel their flights if there weren't any planes hijacked, I mean we used cruise missiles and fight jets for the attacks didn't we?


It can't be a missile in the video. The warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

Quote :

"Pentagon officials cancel flights for Sept. 11th on Sept. 10th, 2001 (MSNBC article): --> see 5th paragraph from the bottom"

Why would they cancel their flights if there weren't any planes hijacked, I mean we used cruise missiles and fight jets for the attacks didn't we?


It can't be a missile in the video. The warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

Quote :

"Pentagon officials cancel flights for Sept. 11th on Sept. 10th, 2001 (MSNBC article): --> see 5th paragraph from the bottom"

Why would they cancel their flights if there weren't any planes hijacked, I mean we used cruise missiles and fight jets for the attacks didn't we?


It can't be a missile in the video. The warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

Quote :

"Pentagon officials cancel flights for Sept. 11th on Sept. 10th, 2001 (MSNBC article): --> see 5th paragraph from the bottom"

Why would they cancel their flights if there weren't any planes hijacked, I mean we used cruise missiles and fight jets for the attacks didn't we?


It can't be a missile in the video. The warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

Quote :

"Pentagon officials cancel flights for Sept. 11th on Sept. 10th, 2001 (MSNBC article): --> see 5th paragraph from the bottom"

Why would they cancel their flights if there weren't any planes hijacked, I mean we used cruise missiles and fight jets for the attacks didn't we?


It can't be a missile in the video. The warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

Quote :

"Pentagon officials cancel flights for Sept. 11th on Sept. 10th, 2001 (MSNBC article): --> see 5th paragraph from the bottom"

Why would they cancel their flights if there weren't any planes hijacked, I mean we used cruise missiles and fight jets for the attacks didn't we?


It can't be a missile in the video. The warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

Quote :

"Pentagon officials cancel flights for Sept. 11th on Sept. 10th, 2001 (MSNBC article): --> see 5th paragraph from the bottom"

Why would they cancel their flights if there weren't any planes hijacked, I mean we used cruise missiles and fight jets for the attacks didn't we?

4/2/2004 3:24:27 PM

Quote :

""Your failure to be informed does not make me a wacko." --John Loeffler"

And your failure to effectively argue does not make me ignorant or blind to some "truth".

4/3/2004 12:07:42 AM

OMG CONSPIRACY!!1

4/3/2004 12:08:29 AM

since you refuse to answer my followus on pm or on here, i'll post the pm you sent me so everyone can get the gist of what you're saying

Quote :

"One of the main purposes of this thread is to make people realize that the government story on 9/11 is a lie. This is not a theory. It is a fact. I don't know all of the details of what happened on 9/11 and have never claimed to have all the answers. I am merely posting this material about the different theories to try to offer possible explanations for the details of what happened on 9/11. For instance, it is clear is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. I have posted material in reference to separate theories that it was either a fighter jet or cruise missile that hit the Pentagon. The main point here is that the official government story is a lie. That is the most important point. The "theories" of what actually hit the Pentagon are useful to understand what actually hit the pentagon, but either way (ie, no matter which theory is correct), it is clear that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon and the government is lying about what really happened. You make mention of me choosing one and "defending it." The most important point is that the government is lying about 9/11. So, for instance, the most important thing in reference to the Pentagon is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. THIS is what I am defending. I am making the argument that there is no way a 757 hit the Pentagon. Whether it was a fighter jet or a cruise missile is secondary in importance. Personally, I tend to think it was a missile of some sort. about the hijackings....their could have still been planes that were hijacked even if those hijacked planes were not used to crash them into the targets. Those hijacked planes could have been disposed of by other means."

So basically folks, he believes that what really happened didn't happen, and he is not smart
enough and/or lacks to courage to select one of the theories he presents. While there is
overwhelming support in evidence for what happened on 9/11, he is waiting for one of the
crackpots to develop more bogus evidence before he falls for their lies.

Hope this satisfies everyone.

PS - why do you post shit on people on the inside saying they know the Gov't knew what was
going to happen when you don't believe what actually happened?

For example, you post this shit about the person on the inside of FBI

Quote :

"proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened."

But since al-Quaida didn't actually attack us (as you have stated in my quoted PM above), why
do you care that this woman is saying this? She is obviously lying about the lie that the
government is putting us onto, right?

GOT YOU MOTHERFUCKER!!! If you actually believed that the gov't attacked us, you would never
post something that stated to the contrary!!!!

[Edited on April 4, 2004 at 9:01 AM. Reason : .]

4/4/2004 8:59:25 AM

"There is a systematic plan to use the concepts of war to rearrange the
chess pieces on the world playing board. It has to do with the New World
Order, Globalism and the attack on national sovereignty we are seeing.
Occasionally, the globalists who want One World Government have to turn
to war to accelerate things."

-- Joel Skousen (editor of World Affairs Brief)

[Edited on April 6, 2004 at 12:28 PM. Reason : ..]

4/6/2004 12:28:23 PM

as quoted by salisburyboy in another thread:

Quote :

"People cannot refute the facts...and I have not seen anyone on here refute the following facts... 1. Bush and Blair saw (on the morning of 9-11-01) the FIRST plane that the WTC. 2. WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted that WTC 7 collapsed due to a controlled demolition. This proves the FEMA report on WTC 7's collapse was a lie. 3. The U.S. military was stood down on 9-11 and prevented from responding according to standard procedure to intercept the "hijacked aircraft." 4. No modern steel skyscrapers in history collapsed due to fire before 9-11-01. The WTC towers were designed to survive an impact from a commercial airliner similar to a Boeing 757 and 767. People reported hearing explosions going off in the WTC towers. Video shows explosive charges going off during the collapse of the WTC towers. Seismic evidence shows a spike BEFORE the collapse of each WTC tower. Those are just a few of the facts...which prove that the U.S. government had prior knowledge of 9-11 and allowed it to happen. "

Quote :

"and I have not seen anyone on here refute the following facts..."

that's funny cause all this thread has been is us disproving every one of your little theories with reliable, hard evidence..none of which you provide for ANYTHING you say.

Quote :

"This proves the FEMA report on WTC 7's collapse was a lie."

show me the damned FEMA report that says this, i want to see line by line what this reads. i want to physically see it in my hands printed out, an official copy of the report that was submitted to FEMA and other government agencies.

Quote :

"The U.S. military was stood down on 9-11 and prevented from responding according to standard procedure to intercept the "hijacked aircraft.""

as stated many times by others such as 1337 b4k4, certain AFBs did not have fighter wings so they could not deploy fighter/interceptors to meet up with the hijacked planes. again, we have shown you proof of what AFBs have fighter wings and such but you chose to disregard that, big surprise!

Quote :

"No modern steel skyscrapers in history collapsed due to fire before 9-11-01. The WTC towers were designed to survive an impact from a commercial airliner similar to a Boeing 757 and 767."

yes that is correct, but no modern skyscraper was tested to make sure it could withhold the tremendous heat and fire from a fully fueled airliner crashing into the infrastructure. also, they were designed to withstand a crash from a Boeing 707 not a 757 or 767, that's a big muthafuckin difference! o and what's this link here:
http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
proof of real engineers who studied the structures and physics of the real world, not quite like you salisbury who doesnt know shit.

Quote :

"People reported hearing explosions going off in the WTC towers"

o did they? you actually talked to the people? you were there standing there with them?

Quote :

"Video shows explosive charges going off during the collapse of the WTC towers"

actually no there is no video that shows this. remember that the video you provided was a cut and paste job of a real video to show what you think are explosions? remember that? also remember that other conspiracy theorists say that that video is garbage cause it is not showing the truth, it is too edited and unclear? remember that? o yea, remember that there were other crisper, clearer pictures from various angles showing there was no explosions or any shit like that? remember that?

it seems to me that it is not us who doesnt want to believe the truth. in all reality, it is you who doesnt want to believe the truth. we have provided hard, credible evidence to refute everything you throw at us up here. you choose not to believe the real evidence and you instead believe what you want. it is a shame, it really is cause it shows you are living in your own little bubble. well i would hate to be there when that bubble bursts. o yea, everytime we do make a valid point, you seem to disregard that point and ignore it like the little disrespectful shit that you are. i've said it in the past, and i'll say it again, if you had any respect for us or our opinions you would not ignore us and our points. please seek help for the sake of humanity.

[Edited on April 7, 2004 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2004 1:20:40 PM

what REALLY happened on september 11th:

4/7/2004 1:23:03 PM

Haha, me likes.

4/7/2004 1:28:28 PM

hey salisburyboy, FUCK ALEX JONES! why dont you for once think with your own head instead of being Jones' jerkoff man. i think if you had the chance to take it up the ass from him, you would bend over right then and there.

did it ever occur to you that, maybe, quite possible this quote:

Quote :

"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower"

by Bush actually meant that he saw the tape rerun of it? moments after it happened? cause i know i sure did when i was in high school. not soon after, the footage of the 1st crash was all over the news. but to you..NOOO of course not, you cant think rationally for a freakin second and realize that is what he most likely meant.

4/7/2004 2:25:43 PM

Alex Jones' commentary on Rice's testimony:

source: http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/condi_liar.htm

quote:

"Condoleezza Rice and the 911 Whitewash Commission are putting
on a huge theatrical display.

...Remember, this is the woman who got up on national television and
told the world that no one in the White House or in the intelligence
complex had ever heard of terrorist plans to crash planes into buildings.

As a radio broadcaster, I had seen at least 50 mainstream media
reports in the six years leading up to 9/11 reporting on the fact that
Islamic terror groups were planning to fly aircraft into US, British,
French, Israeli and Egyptian landmarks.

Her lie was so blatant that even the dumbed-down general public
saw right through it. She later had to admit that she was wrong.
(That makes her a liar) But it wasn't just her, it was the whole
beady-eyed administration crowing like a bunch of roosters that
no one in the world had ever heard of such a plan. This was despite
the fact that in November of 2000 the Pentagon ran a drill in which
terrorists flew a plane into the Pentagon.

Now Rice has the sickening aplomb to go on national television and
claim that the first major national security policy directive of the
administration was "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but
the elimination of al-Qaida."

This would have me rolling on the floor if so many people hadn't
died on September 11th.

The truth is public knowledge, but it has been buried in the back
of hundreds of newspapers in the US and across the world. Bush
ordered the FBI not to stop Al-Qaeda and to leave terrorist funding
organizations alone in the US. He threatened to arrest FBI agents
that continued to investigate Al-Qaeda, Hamas and others.

Bill Clinton told three separate countries that he didn't want them
to arrest Al-Qaeda. He also ordered the FBI to stop investigating
them while, at the same time, refusing to even take receipt from
foreign countries of thousands of pages of documents detailing
Al-Qaeda operations.

The truth be know, Al-Qaeda is a military-industrial complex creation.
It is a wholly manufactured threat to be used to scare Americans
and people of the world into submission. The 9/11 commission is a
joke. Chairman Keen is in business [with] Bin Laden's brother-in-law.
Almost every member of the commission and top staffers were involved
in the 9/11 cover-up prior to the commission being formed."


[Edited on April 8, 2004 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ..]

4/8/2004 12:23:47 PM

4/8/2004 12:25:28 PM

More from Jones on the 9/11 commission:

source: http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/condi_liar.htm

quote:

"Don't forget that the first "independent" head of the commission was
going to be known war criminal Dr. Henry Kissinger. When that backfired
on the globalists, they simply got lesser known thespians to carry out
their Shakespearian WWF play.

If this were a real commission they would be asking Condoleezza Rice
why the White House called Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco on the
night of September 10th and warned him not to fly to New York on the
morning of September 11th. They would ask Dr. Rice why her boss,
George Bush, ordered her to allow 144 members of the Bin laden family
to be picked up by three separate flights and flown out of the country
on the night of September 11th, when all other air traffic was grounded.

The kangaroo commission would ask her to explain why the CIA was
running a major drill out of DC at 8:30 AM on September 11th simulating
hijacked planes being flown into landmarks in New York and DC.

They would ask her why NORAD stood down for over an hour for the first
time in US history.

Of course, the commission, in secret session, talked to FBI translator
Sibel Edmonds who told them in specific detail how she was ordered to
falsify records in order to cover up evidence of specific warning before
9/11 of plans by Al-Qaeda to fly planes into skyscrapers in US cities. She
also talked about how John Ashcroft offered to bribe her with a better
job to keep quiet and threatened to arrest her if she didn't shut up. He
also had her followed. now the commission has never said one word about
these incredible revelations in all the countless press conferences and tV
new shows they've been on."

4/8/2004 12:30:51 PM

you are the most disrespectful, dishonest, little piece of worthless life i have ever come into contact with. you dont even have the DECENCY to acknowledge anything i said above in my previous posts, especially the one about not touching on any of your points you brought up. pray that you never meet me in real life.

4/8/2004 7:22:20 PM

The 9-11 Commission and the Bush administratin are loaded with members
of the Council on Foreign Relations (a group adancing global government):

source: http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/cfr_whitewash_commission.htm

quote:

"9-11 Commission Members:

Thomas H. Kean----(Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member)
Chair

Lee H. Hamilton----(CFR member / Trilateral Commission (TC) member)
Vice Chair

Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick----(CFR member)
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey----(CFR member)
John F. Lehman----(CFR member)
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson

...

Note: Dr. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's National Security Adviser,
is also a CFR member, as are:

Vice President Dick Cheney (formerly: a CFR director, member of the
Trilateral Commission, and former chairman,
president and CEO of Halliburton Co.)

Colin Powell, Secretary of State

Paul Wolfowitz, senior Bush administration official involved with Iraq War
(also has been member of the Trilateral Commission)

(also: former President George H.W. Bush was both a CFR director and
a member of the Trilateral Commission) "


[Edited on April 9, 2004 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ..]

4/9/2004 1:24:40 PM

source: http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/condi_liar.htm

quote:

"My friends, there are over 600 smoking guns...These smoking guns are
in my documentary films, 911: The Road to Tyranny and The Masters
of Terror and in my book 911: Descent into Tyranny as well as in
a book published by infowars.com, Order Out of Chaos, by acclaimed
researcher Paul Joseph Watson.

Below is a link to the Prison Planet 911 Archive, it is one of the most
extensive in existence. I suggest that you spend time looking at these four
particular subsections to understand how the truth is hiding in plain sight:

W199I - FBI hindered in Al-Qaeda investigation: http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#w199i

Clinton Administration protection of terrorists: http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#clinton

Carlyle Group and bush-Bin Laden Connection: http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#carlyle

Bin Laden the CIA Asset: http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#ciaasset

"

[Edited on April 10, 2004 at 9:35 PM. Reason : ..]

4/10/2004 9:30:14 PM

Quote :

"you are the most disrespectful, dishonest, little piece of worthless life i have ever come into contact with. you dont even have the DECENCY to acknowledge anything i said above in my previous posts, especially the one about not touching on any of your points you brought up. pray that you never meet me in real life. "

That made me smile

4/10/2004 10:02:32 PM

Concerning the "Aug. 6th memo":

source: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usdocu113750627apr11,0,923381.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

quote:

"U.S. was warned: A declassified document written five weeks before 9/11 says
al-Qaida members were planning major attacks, including hijackings

WASHINGTON - Just five weeks before the 9/11 terror attacks, the CIA told President
George W. Bush that a group of Osama bin Laden supporters was said to be in the United
States planning assaults with explosives.

The plotters were among a number of al-Qaida members who have "resided in or traveled
to the U.S. for years" and maintain a support structure "that could aid attacks," Bush was
told in a briefing paper given to him on Aug. 6, 2001, at his ranch in Texas.

The paper also warned that the FBI had noted domestic activity "consistent with preparations"
for airplane hijackings or other attacks - "including recent surveillance of federal buildings
in New York."

The document, known as the president's daily brief, was declassified and released by the
White House yesterday after it became the focus of controversy during White House National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony to the commission last week investigating the
9/11 attacks."


[Edited on April 13, 2004 at 12:17 PM. Reason : ..]

4/13/2004 12:15:55 PM

Quote :

"The paper also warned that the FBI had noted domestic activity "consistent with preparations" for airplane hijackings or other attacks - "including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.""

how fucking dense in the head are you? hijacking airplanes and surveying federal buildings in NYC does NOT mean they are gonna use the fucking airliners as guided missiles to be flown into CIVILIAN buildings.

you are such a freakin moron. i feel dumber just from arguing with you, i wonder how you feel.

4/13/2004 12:59:26 PM

source: http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm

quote:

"The American government has a habit of lying to its citizens when it wants
to contrive a new war.

In 1898, the sinking of the battleship Maine was the excuse for the Spanish
American War

In 1915, the sinking of the ocean liner Lusitania was the excuse for World War I

In 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor was the excuse for World War II

In 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin affair was the excuse for the Vietnam War

In 2001, the 9/11 attacks were the excuse for the "war on terrorism"

In 2003, the fictional weapons of mass destruction were the pretext for the war
on Iraq"


[Edited on April 15, 2004 at 12:28 PM. Reason : ..]

4/15/2004 12:25:43 PM

Quote :

"By Norman D. Livergood"

Quote :

" Areas of Specialty # Philosophy * # Religion * # Psychology * # Social Science * # Computer Science * Artificial Intelligence * JavaScript * Introduction to computers * HTML # Management Information Systems * Executive Decision Systems * Expert Systems * Intelligent Planning Systems * Corporate Intelligence # Training and Instruction * Intelligent Tutorials * Design and Development of Instructional Systems # Internet * HTML Web pages * JavaScript * Java * CGIs * Director * Graphics * Internet Training * Internet Systems Design and Development # Multimedia * Director * Authorware * PowerPoint * Animation * Video * Graphics * Presentations http://www.hermes-press.com/ndlareas.html#* "

where is his expertise in government, government affairs, government operations? where is his proof and evidence? see there is none, he is giving his opinions and his fuckin theories. HE IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE DUMBSHIT!!!!

Quote :

" In 1898, the sinking of the battleship Maine was the excuse for the Spanish American War In 1915, the sinking of the ocean liner Lusitania was the excuse for World War I In 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor was the excuse for World War II"

those are hardly excuses, those are REASONS!

[Edited on April 15, 2004 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2004 1:06:13 PM

In 1898, The U.S. military, not Spain, sunk the battleship Maine.

In 1941, the U.S. allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor as an excuse to
enter WW II.

In 1964, the North Vietnamese did NOT attack U.S. ships in the "Gulf of Tonkin
incident."



[Edited on April 15, 2004 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ..]

4/15/2004 1:27:41 PM

Quote :

"In the evening of 15 February 1898, Maine sank when her forward gunpowder magazines exploded. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/spanam/events/maineskg.htm"

what hard, real proof do you have that proves the "U.S. military, not Spain" sunk the battleship?

Quote :

"In 1941, the U.S. allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor as an excuse to enter WW II."

the US did not "allow" the Japanese to attack. there were miscommunications between the varying intel stations in the Pacific, on the west coast and in DC. the intercepted messages from the Japanese were not passed on in a timely manner and thus was not decoded in time. that is HARDLY ALLOWING the attack to happen. don't you dare tell me that.

4/15/2004 1:44:19 PM

Next you're going to say that the British didn't actually burn down the White House in the War of 1812. It was a conspiracy by the Americans.

Hell, while we're at it, lets keep going! The Boston Tea Party never happened, oh, and we were never taxed unfairly. Hell, we passed all those taxes ourselves, then blamed the British. French Revolution? America's fault.

Napoleon's loss at Waterloo? Conspiracy by Americans.
Crucifixion of Jesus? Americans.
Eve eating that damn apple and getting us kicked out of the Garden of Eden? Those fucking Americans.

4/15/2004 1:55:28 PM

even if everything you said here in all 22 pages of this thread was proven to be true (even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff)

no one would care.. people would still love/hate the bush administration just as much, and no one would do anything any differently than they did before.. the official story (which is probably bullshit to some extent) is the one that is going in the books, end of discussion

4/15/2004 2:02:14 PM

CIA Warned of Attack 6 Years Before 9/11

source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040417-122030-8266r.htm

quote:

"Six years before the September 11 attacks, the CIA warned in a classified report that
Islamist extremists likely would strike on U.S. soil at landmarks in Washington or New York,
or through the airline industry, according to intelligence officials."

4/17/2004 8:35:01 PM

you are such a fuckin troll.

btw:

Quote :

" The report specifically warned that civil aviation, Washington landmarks such as the White House and Capitol and buildings on Wall Street in New York City were at the greatest risk of a domestic terror attack by Muslim extremists, the official said. "

yea cause the WTC is on wall street right salisburydick?

Quote :

"Despite this intelligence, "there was no comprehensive estimate of the enemy," the commission report said. "

so basically if you even bothered to read the article you would have read all this. no one knew what he was capable of, no one knew he was gonna crash airliners into the freakin WTC. now STFU!!

4/17/2004 8:44:44 PM

We already know Rice lied when she said that no one in the government could have
envisioned terrorists flying planes into buildings. Bush has told this same lie:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1192226,00.html

quote:

"In a press conference on Tuesday night, George Bush claimed that his administration
could not have foreseen the use of aeroplanes as missiles by terrorists. "We knew he
[Osama bin Laden] had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was nobody in
our government, and I don't think [in] the prior government, that could envision flying
airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale," he said.

That claim was questioned in a report published yesterday by the September 11
commission, which pointed to a string of intelligence reports in the 1990s suggesting
that al-Qaida was contemplating such ideas, including, in 1998, "a possible plot to fly
an explosives-laden aircraft into a US city."

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

The CIA had know for years--going back at least into the mid 1990s--that terrorists
had planned on flying planes into buildings. On top of that, the Pentagon was conducting
an exercise on the morning of Sept. 11th simulating a plane crashing into the Pentagon.


[Edited on April 17, 2004 at 8:49 PM. Reason : ..]

4/17/2004 8:47:40 PM

The 9/11 Commission is serving in general to promote the new police powers given to
the federal government. Those tesifying before the commission are praising the Patriot
Act, and talk is already underway of creating a new domestic intelligence agency.

source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p02s01-uspo.html

quote:

"Patriot Act gets boost from 9/11 hearings

While the Bush administration took heavy hits in last week's 9/11 commission hearings,
the hearings may have given the White House a public relations boost on one important
front: its effort to win renewal this year for the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Pressed by commissioners as to why their agencies failed to "connect the dots" before
the 9/11 attacks, law enforcement and intelligence officials in both the Clinton and Bush
administrations cited powers now included in the Patriot Act. The act, for example,
makes it easier for agencies to to monitor the activities of suspected terrorists, and
lets agents conducting criminal probes share information with intelligence officers, and
vice versa."

[Edited on April 19, 2004 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ..]

4/19/2004 3:47:53 PM

WHO CARES? you don't even have the balls to answer a PM...you little pussy

4/19/2004 11:56:26 PM

^ no he doesnt have the balls cause of the fact all he is spewing out is shit and cant back any of it with his own thoughts and views. he is a mindless troll who i think gets off on the fact he sees his name being posted on a message board.

4/20/2004 1:01:22 PM

No, I have the balls. It's called time management. I don't want to waste my time with
the real trolls around here.

I've got more important things to do than humor people who want to merely bagger and
distract me and ask me silly questions.

[Edited on April 20, 2004 at 1:15 PM. Reason : ..]

4/20/2004 1:14:18 PM

haha you are the only realtroll here. you keep posting mindless banter that no one cares about instead of addressing what people say in previous posts. you are so freakin disrespectful, it utterly shocks me. at least have the common decency to acknowledge what people say instead of ignoring them like they are gutter-trash.

4/20/2004 1:16:15 PM

quote:

brianj320: "you keep posting mindless banter that no one cares about instead of
addressing what people say in previous posts"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are coming from a different perspective than me. You claim that what I post is "mindless"
and that "no one cares about" it. Well, that may be your opinion, but it is not true. What
I am posting is by no stretch mindless, and it is certainly important. People should care
about the truth about 9-11 and who is responsible.

It is not true that I never address what other people say. I often do address what
other people post as long as it is relevant, serious, and sincere. If the questions/comments
are silly, repetitive and have already been addressed, or are designed merely to incite or
distract me, then I will probably not respond to it. It would be a waste of my time.


[Edited on April 20, 2004 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ..]

4/20/2004 1:23:23 PM

Good then you won't mind answering the following sincere and as of yet unadressed questions:

It can't be a missile in the video. The warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

Quote :

"Pentagon officials cancel flights for Sept. 11th on Sept. 10th, 2001 (MSNBC article): --> see 5th paragraph from the bottom"

Why would they cancel their flights if there weren't any planes hijacked, I mean we used cruise missiles and fight jets for the attacks didn't we?

4/20/2004 1:27:39 PM

Quote :

"No, I have the balls. It's called time management. I don't want to waste my time with the real trolls around here. I've got more important things to do than humor people who want to merely bagger and distract me and ask me silly questions. "

Then please answer my very sincere and very legitimate questions as posted above by B4K4. You know damn well that I don't troll. Don't be scurred.

4/20/2004 1:52:08 PM

without reading the other 22 pages I shall respond to the original post ...

1. it doesn't say which plane he saw, just that he saw a plane hit the tower. Depending on the angle of the TV camera at the time he may not have noticed the smoke in the bg was coming from the first tower that was hit.
2. ok so the TV was on to the news ... he is after all a public figure and one would hope he'd keep up with the media either personally or via his subordinates

I don't say here whether or not I support or reject Bush, I'm just sayin that original post don't mean nothin

4/20/2004 1:58:09 PM

Quote :

"but if you're going to present all of these theories of what could have happened, then you obviously don't really know what happened - thus a theory could be that terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them into the buildings. since you have no concrete evidence that it didn't happen and haven't been able to choose one single theory, you really can't refute the hijackings. if, however, you could actually man up and say that you believed a specific theory for reasons a, b, c, and d, then you could be more believable when you say the hijackings didn't occur. but right now you're trying to say "believe all of the theories EXCEPT for one" that one happens to be the official story. have you taken the time to look at the photos from real websites - ones that don't use portions of photos but rather real photos. have you seen the massive damage that was done to the pentagon?i'm asking this because the pictures you put up as evidence are clearly portions of larger pictures presented to mislead the eye. you have never presented a good case about what really happened"

boy you got me...i have never asked a serious question

i now know that a troll posts intelligent questions, while a non-troll posts a crapload of unconnected articles that severely conflict
and presents no support for any one in particular

you are so lame - you need to time manage? what time are you managing? you spend countless hours digging up drivel that
makes you look uneducated and weak...if you do have the balls to decide on one theory, fucking do it...otherwise you're just yellow

ps...it's badger, not bagger


[Edited on April 21, 2004 at 6:23 AM. Reason : .]

4/21/2004 6:22:31 AM

goalielax: "you are so lame - you need to time manage? what time are
you managing? you spend countless hours digging up drivel that makes you look
uneducated and weak...if you do have the balls to decide on one theory, fucking do
it...otherwise you're just yellow"

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

blah, blah, blah

If I'm so "lame", "uneducated", and "weak", why don't you just ignore me and stop posting
in this thread? Please do. This thread is for people who can see the truth and care enough
about these matters to investigate them on their own and take some form of action, not for
those who would rather believe lies and remain ignorant brainwashed slaves, as the
government wants.


[Edited on April 21, 2004 at 11:37 AM. Reason : ..]

4/21/2004 11:33:25 AM

Why don't we just ignore you?

Let me put it like this...y'know when you're sitting outside, and there's this little gnat or mosquito buzzing in your ear, and it's so annoying you just want to swat at it?

You sir, are a god damned mosquito to everyone here with some slight amount of intelligence. You're annoying enough that people just want to swat at you. Even when people try to ignore you, you keep bringing this thread, or one of your other pet threads, up again. It's annoying as fuck, and we keep hoping against hope that you'll quit it. Most people here are here to debate and discuss things rationally (more or less), but you are obviously not capable of, nor interested in, debate of any sort. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can act like a four year old....find one, and stay there.

4/21/2004 12:06:55 PM

Quote :

"This thread is for people who can see the truth"

So then why do you keep spreading lies?

4/21/2004 12:12:03 PM

USA Today reports that NORAD conducted drills of jets as weapons in the
2 years before 9-11:

source: http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com%2B-%2BNORAD%2Bhad%2Bdrills%2Bof%2Bjets%2Bas%2Bweapons&expire=&urlID=9961878&fb=Y&url=http%3A//www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm&partnerID=1660

quote:

"NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

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

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

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It
said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide
exercises."

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft,"
the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble
and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and
operational security and communications security procedures."

A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of
the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part
of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited
scrutiny."

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

But Bush and Rice told us over and over that "no one in the government could have
envisioned planes being used as missiles." Who's lying? It couldn't possibly be Bush
and Rice. The government would NEVER lie to us! The government loves us! It's
our friend!


[Edited on April 21, 2004 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ..]

4/21/2004 12:33:18 PM

Caller on Howard Stern Show confirms Shootdown of Flight 93:

link below has the audio...

source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2004/042104flight93.htm

quote:

"Eyewitness Confirms Shootdown of Flight 93

Howard Stern Show
April 21 2004

A caller to the Howard Stern Show related the story of how he saw Flight 93 in flames
while it was in the air and two other aircraft circling it.

Please understand that we do not advocate the usual content of Stern's show, but this
is interesting nonetheless."

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

I think I'll provide a similar disclaimer...

Please understand that I do not advocate the usual content of Stern's show, but this is
interesting nonetheless.


[Edited on April 21, 2004 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ..]

4/21/2004 12:59:17 PM