a psychiatrist speaks out about 9/11

[mhgaffney]

I've noticed -- in this offseason --- that posters have been ranging far and wide. So the following is certainly apropos.

This piece went up on the web last February -- but it's still timely.

I should say I don't agree with the author on every point. However, on the whole I have to say "Bravo!" MHG

February 17, 2007 at 10:36:26

Why the resistance to 9-11 truth?

by Carol Wolman

http://www.opednews.com

Anyone who has studied 9-11 at all knows it was an inside job.

Bush was not surprised. His brother Marvin's security company closed down one tower the week before and brought in lots of cables and other equipment. The towers, including building 7, were dropped by controlled demolition. The planes provided a dramatic cover story- great pix.

Rumsfeld had control of scrambling planes transferred to himself, exclusively, a few months before, and then disappeared that morning, so no planes intercepted the four hijacked airliners. Instead, there was a "stand-down" of NORAD. By some strange coincidence, a military exercise was being run that am which simulated planes crashing into buildings, so that the air traffic controllers were confused about whether the "attack" was real or part of a drill.

The buildings were pulverized, but the passports of the hijackers were miraculously thrown clear and quickly "discovered". There was no investigation, only a coverup that blamed the CIA and recommended police state measures to prevent future "attacks".

Then there's the lack of plane parts and small hole at the Pentagon. The flying out of the Bin Laden family the next day. The millions made on selling airline stocks short by those in the know. The confusion about passenger lists. The rejection of FBI reports about possible terrorists at US flying schools. And on and on.

There are so many videos that its hard to choose, but my favorites is 9-11 Mysteries at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 If you are not certain that 9-11 was an inside job, please watch this video. It's 1 1/2 hours of factual material that will convince you. You owe it to yourself and all the rest of us to learn the truth about 9-11.

Most Americans, even those who are working for peace and impeachment, are reluctant to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest actually planned and implemented 9-11, even though their long range plan (PNAC) clearly states that they need "a new Pearl Harbor". The Reichstag fire is a better parallel, since it was also an inside job.

Polls show widespread skepticism of the cover story, and suspicion that Bush allowed 9-11 to happen, ignoring warnings from abroad and from his own intelligence service. But to think that he actually helped plan it, that demolition charges were set in the Towers by his brother's company- that is a depth of evil that most of us can't even begin to contemplate.

Why is this? Why, when we all know so well what liars and connivers the Bush people are, how little they care for human life, or truth, or honor, how greedy they are for power and how ruthless they are in pursuing it, why is it so hard to believe that they planned and carried out 9-11?

The degree of denial is astounding.

The cover story is paper thin. Osama was blamed within 24 hours, with no investigation. It's obvious that the 9-11 Commission asked the wrong question,- not whodunit, but why were the signals missed? It's obvious that Osama, no matter how bright and charismatic, could not have orchestrated such a massive attack from caves in Afghanistan. It's obvious that the Saudi hijackers, if that's who they were, were allowed into this country with no screening, allowed to take flight lessons, allowed to get on airplanes with box cutters- but how could all this be known, when the twin towers were pulverized? Etc. etc.

When denial is so strong, it's because people don't want to know the truth. The implications are too overwhelming, too frightening. Facing the truth about 9-11, that it was an inside job, planned and carried out with the help of the Bush family and administration, means facing the fact that we are saddled with a monster, a satanic creature, that will stop at nothing to gain total power.

It means facing what fools we are, what cowards we are, not to call a spade a spade.

It means seeing through the pious cloak of false Christianity and false patriotism that Bush has assumed.

It means facing the terrible danger we are in, of losing every ounce of precious freedom our forefathers fought so hard to obtain, and that we so take for granted.

It means looking frankly at our helplessness, our gullibility, our willingness to accept any form of hypocrisy, as long as we are allowed to go on shopping.

It means realizing that Bush controls vast portions of our society- that many people must know that 9-11 was an inside job, and won't step forward and say so, out of bribery, intimidation, or both. A few brave souls have spoken up about the "power down" at the towers the week before, the evacuation of building 7 several hours before it, too, was brought down by preplanted demolition charges, the confusion at air traffic control when NORAD failed to intercept the planes that were so far off course- but not many dare to speak out. Why not?

It means realizing that the situation is so dire that we need help from a higher power, and should start praying, as sailors do when the ship is sinking.

Six years after 9-11, We the People are starting to recognize that we, too, have power. Some of us have been praying steadily, and the fruits are starting to show.

We've seen through the lies that took us into Iraq, and understand more about Bush's hypocrisy, and willingness to "fix the facts around the policy" as the Downing Street memo puts it. Osama is another convenient "fact", like WMD's in Iraq.

We've seen that we have been blessed with the internet, with which to hunt for the truth, disseminate it, work with one another to reach new depths of understanding of our situation.

We've come to understand that under our precious Constitution, We the People are sovereign, and don't have to tolerate another King George.

We've won an election, despite all the dirty tricks and voting machine fraud. We've even pushed the incoming Congress to censure Bush.

Our higher power has helped us all along to value truth above convenience, to fight with words rather than guns, to operate out of love for each other and future generations.

Perhaps now we are ready to face the truth about 9-11. The whole "war on terror" is based on 9-11, and is seen for the sham it is, once we realize it was an inside job. Once we do, our outrage will be so great that we will force Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney, the real hijackers.

In the name of the Prince of Peace, Carol Wolman


http://voteCarolWolmanforCongress.com

Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is actively working to impeach Bush and Cheney, and suggests you join or form a local group at http://impeachbush.meetup.com/ She ran for Congress as a nonpartisan write-in candidate in CA district 1, and is a coordinator of The Longhouse Coalition.

[Rock Chalk]

I like smoked brisket, preferably smoked with pecan or apple wood, then basted with a tangy yet mild barbecue sauce, served on white bread.

Add a nice cold one to it, some baked beans and tater salad and that my friends, is pure bliss.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I watched 'Creature From the Black Lagoon' last night, awesome movie!!!

[Northman]

I watched 'Creature From the Black Lagoon' last night, awesome movie!!!

definite classic. :thumbsup:

[Dagmar]

http://www.tooshocking.com/content/images/image_4089b983454d9a939b78ae7e0c7d1186.jpg

[footstepsfrom#27]

Cajun style shrimp fettucine alfredo with asparagus, mushrooms and roasted cashews, romain and tomato salad with greek olives, avocado and radishes, a nice merlot and some cherry cream pie with a good strong Brazilian coffee. ;D

[watermock]

I've seen that before.

It'll tell you two things, a 767 is not a 707 and if the idiot had any idea how the towers were built and why he could buy a vowel.

The towers were a revolutionary design that wan't a typical complete skeleton. It was an external skeleton. That's why it fell domino effect.

Third, Asbestos was banned and the fireproofing was NOT as good as asbestos for fire retartance. These are facts.

This idiot was in the war and politics room and very lonely.

[Willynowei]

I like smoked brisket, preferably smoked with pecan or apple wood, then basted with a tangy yet mild barbecue sauce, served on white bread.

Add a nice cold one to it, some baked beans and tater salad and that my friends, is pure bliss.

dude.

That sounds amazing.

[Willynowei]

1. Stephen Hawking
2. Gifted
3. Smart
4. Average
5. Slow
6. Retarded
7. Sloth
8. Homer Simpson
9. Brick Wall
10. People who think 9/11 was an inside job.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

definite classic. :thumbsup:Yep and then for the second half of the double header I seen 'Vanishing Point' (the original 1971 with Barry Newman as Kowalski and Cleavon Little as Super Soul).







http://www.motoramamovieimages.com/Vanishing%20Point%20uk%20quad%2050.JPG

[Dagmar]

9/11, 2992 deaths = Americans in mourning and uproar.

Illegal war in Iraq, 3364 deaths = Americans go about their business.

(I figure this'll get it sent away)

[RkyMtnThunder]

I like smoked brisket, preferably smoked with pecan or apple wood, then basted with a tangy yet mild barbecue sauce, served on white bread.

Add a nice cold one to it, some baked beans and tater salad and that my friends, is pure bliss.


We got red meat, white bread and mayonnaise! No wonder America is 65% obese. :thumbsup:

[sirhcyennek81]

9/11, 2992 deaths = Americans in mourning and uproar.

Illegal war in Iraq, 3364 deaths = Americans go about their business.

(I figure this'll get it sent away)


I find it amusing that you somehow feel you get the moral edge by calling this war illegal. Does it honestly make you feel better to call it that? Also, who defines the legality of war? Does the UN feel its legal? On the flip side, why does the US feel the need to "pre approve" its actions in regards to self defense with a world body that is dominated by leftists and jihadi apologists? Please recall the UN, who the american left feels we must get the OK from before we do anything, had syria and libya on its human rights boards...But keep that death count, "support" the troops and bleat like sheep that Bush is the enemy, and not the ****ers who have been planning our destruction since 1979.


:Broncos:

[watermock]

I have tried to stay out of this, but THE ENENY DECLARED WAR ON US AND YOU CAN'T SIMPLY HEAR BIN LADEN'S VOICE, NOT BUSH'S.

We watched american reporters/prisoners being decapitated with hacksaws...OH MY,,,THAT MIGHT BE TOO MUCH TO TAKE.

Save the BS.

We are watching mindless bombs going off and killing countless civilians...why?

Are we imposing any religious doctrine? Are we even creating a democracy? No. Are we creating a Parlament? Hopefully.

Take it back to the crap zone. The one reason you came was to stir up crap.

[DBruleU]

I just got home from eating at The Cork here in Boulder...the crab cakes, and peppered steak is fantastic! A great meal.

[Dagmar]

Result!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I find it amusing that you somehow feel you get the moral edge by calling this war illegal. Does it honestly make you feel better to call it that? Also, who defines the legality of war? Does the UN feel its legal? On the flip side, why does the US feel the need to "pre approve" its actions in regards to self defense with a world body that is dominated by leftists and jihadi apologists? Please recall the UN, who the american left feels we must get the OK from before we do anything, had syria and libya on its human rights boards...But keep that death count, "support" the troops and bleat like sheep that Bush is the enemy, and not the ****ers who have been planning our destruction since 1979.
:Broncos:Exactly when did ANY Iraqis attack the U.S. now?
Explain again why we invaded and occupied Iraq?

I find it amusing there actually are some Bush apologists still left!

I have tried to stay out of this, but THE ENENY DECLARED WAR ON US AND YOU CAN'T SIMPLY HEAR BIN LADEN'S VOICE, NOT BUSH'S.
Two in the same thread.....amazing! (and amusing).

[Spider]

I find it amusing that you somehow feel you get the moral edge by calling this war illegal. Does it honestly make you feel better to call it that? Also, who defines the legality of war? Does the UN feel its legal? On the flip side, why does the US feel the need to "pre approve" its actions in regards to self defense with a world body that is dominated by leftists and jihadi apologists? Please recall the UN, who the american left feels we must get the OK from before we do anything, had syria and libya on its human rights boards...But keep that death count, "support" the troops and bleat like sheep that Bush is the enemy, and not the ****ers who have been planning our destruction since 1979.


:Broncos:

you are full of shít ..why do you continue on spewing bullshít ?
the war was and still is in Afghanistan .............why not man up and face reality ? is the truth too much for you to handle so you stick in make believe land ?

[Dagmar]

I have tried to stay out of this, but THE ENENY DECLARED WAR ON US AND YOU CAN'T SIMPLY HEAR BIN LADEN'S VOICE, NOT BUSH'S.

We watched american reporters/prisoners being decapitated with hacksaws...OH MY,,,THAT MIGHT BE TOO MUCH TO TAKE.

Save the BS.

We are watching mindless bombs going off and killing countless civilians...why?

Are we imposing any religious doctrine? Are we even creating a democracy? No. Are we creating a Parlament? Hopefully.

Take it back to the crap zone. The one reason you came was to stir up crap.

http://imagechan.com/img/image.php?id=1390

[Bronco Bob]

On the flip side, why does the US feel the need to "pre approve" its actions in regards to self defense

I thought we were talking about the war in Iraq. What does an elective
war by the neocons have to do with defending America?

[ColoradoDarin]

Exactly when did ANY Iraqis attack the U.S. now?
Explain again why we invaded and occupied Iraq?

I find it amusing there actually are some Bush apologists still left!

Two in the same thread.....amazing! (and amusing).

You are aware that Gulf War I never actually ended right? You are probably also aware that since that time, we have enforced the no-fly zones as part of the cease-fire agreement the former regime agreed to and that our planes have been fired upon?

[Bronco Bob]

You are aware that Gulf War I never actually ended right? You are probably also aware that since that time, we have enforced the no-fly zones as part of the cease-fire agreement the former regime agreed to and that our planes have been fired upon?

So then what was the purpose of General Swartzkoff sitting in that
tent with a bunch of Iraqi generals signing a bunch of documents?
Could have sworn that was the Iraqis surrendering. And when one
side surrenders, doesn't that mean the war is over? Are we still
at war with Japan, for example?

And I'm not sure how the rest of that relates to invading Iraq for no
particularly good reason.

[Spider]

You are aware that Gulf War I never actually ended right? You are probably also aware that since that time, we have enforced the no-fly zones as part of the cease-fire agreement the former regime agreed to and that our planes have been fired upon?

save it , we have enough bullshít being posted here by right wing retards .........not even close to invade another country

[mhgaffney]

I've seen that before.

It'll tell you two things, a 767 is not a 707 and if the idiot had any idea how the towers were built and why he could buy a vowel.

The towers were a revolutionary design that wan't a typical complete skeleton. It was an external skeleton. That's why it fell domino effect.

Third, Asbestos was banned and the fireproofing was NOT as good as asbestos for fire retartance. These are facts.

This idiot was in the war and politics room and very lonely.

I didn't count all of them -- but I see there are numerous candidates in here for psychiatry. If you can't talk about a problem, buddy, there isn't going to be a solution. That's just how it is.

The one guy - Watermock -- who is talking -- isn't really, he's just mouthing cliches and shallow sound bytes he heard somewhere (probably on FOX) and has done zero research of his own, nor given any serious thought to the greatest crime in US history.

A crime that remains unsolved -- for which reason the nation, even the world, hangs by a thread.

So Mock, you are no different. Same old same old. We see plenty of it in here. Lots of hot air -- signifying nothing. Another candidate for the lady's couche. She could probably help you, if you could only face it.

BTW, I know how the towers were built. Even the NIST rejected the quote "domino" effect. In the end they never did explain the WTC collapse.

[ColoradoDarin]

So then what was the purpose of General Swartzkoff sitting in that
tent with a bunch of Iraqi generals signing a bunch of documents?
Could have sworn that was the Iraqis surrendering. And when one
side surrenders, doesn't that mean the war is over? Are we still
at war with Japan, for example?

And I'm not sure how the rest of that relates to invading Iraq for no
particularly good reason.

It was already in my post, we signed a cease fire agreement.

[Spider]

And I'm not sure how the rest of that relates to invading Iraq for no
particularly good reason.

It doesnt these **** tards dont want to admit they ****ed up by voting for Bush , so they pull shít out of their ass and hope it works .......... not 1 of theses ****tards can come up with 1 good reason ..........

[ColoradoDarin]

save it , we have enough bullshít being posted here by right wing retards .........not even close to invade another country

Go f*ck yourself.

[Spider]

Go **** yourself.

No you go **** yourself retard ...........

[Spider]

you are ****ing lying Darin , if you cant take being called a liar asswipe , then stop the lies

[ColoradoDarin]

No you go **** yourself retard ...........

........use......more.......in.....your......posts .....it's....a......sign....of......intelligence.. ....

[Spider]

........use......more.......in.....your......posts .....it's....a......sign....of......intelligence.. ....

and this has what to do with you going and ****ing yourself ?

[mhgaffney]

The General Mane Discussion room had no problem with honey bees and King Herod's Tomb, but start talking about 911 and they freak.

Just goes to show how badly the room needed this thread.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You are aware that Gulf War I never actually ended right? You are probably also aware that since that time, we have enforced the no-fly zones as part of the cease-fire agreement the former regime agreed to and that our planes have been fired upon?Geeeezus! Maybe you better bone up a little before posting erroneous information? On the same day the Iraqi government announced acceptance of the UN resolution George H. W. Bush announced that the war was officially over.

[Spider]

Geeeezus! Maybe you better bone up a little before posting erroneous information? On the same day the Iraqi government announced acceptance of the UN resolution George H. W. Bush announced that the war was officially over.

Darin knows he is full of shít ......

[ColoradoDarin]

Geeeezus! Maybe you better bone up a little before posting erroneous information? On the same day the Iraqi government announced acceptance of the UN resolution George H. W. Bush announced that the war was officially over.

So what's the name of the treaty (ya know, like the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI)?

[Spider]

So what's the name of the treaty (ya know, like the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI)?

well boy here it is ..........http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq050.htm
so now what shít head ?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So what's the name of the treaty (ya know, like the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI)?Do you not understand what ""the war is over" means? Maybe you better do a little research and come back later when you're better armed to participate in a American history discussion.

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

THE WHITE HOUSE
(3/30/92)

President Bush
Q&A on end of the Persian Gulf War

Q. Why did you end the war when you did, instead of going on to Baghdad to get Saddam Hussein?

A. It was never part of our mission to take Baghdad. We stopped the war when we achieved our objectives -- to liberate Kuwait and destroy Iraq's offensive military capability, its ability to threaten its neighbors. That was the mission agreed to by Congress, the United Nations, and our coalition partners, and supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

We ended the war when the enemy was defeated. It was a unanimous recommendation of Secretary Cheney, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf.

To then ask American troops to continue their combat operations, to continue the killing and the destruction, was not something we were eager to do. There is a basic decency to our men and women in uniform. They quickly made the transition from being warriors to being angels of mercy, taking care of the thousands of surrendering Iraqi prisoners. The pictures of those young Americans caring for the Iraqi soldiers were some of the most poignant images of the war.

If we had kept going, we would have gone beyond what we said we intended to do, beyond what our coalition partners agreed to, beyond what the UN Security Council signed up to, and beyond what the Congress and the American people approved. We entered the war with clear-cut military objectives.

We certainly had the military capability to go on to Baghdad, but for what purpose? To get Saddam Hussein? I doubt that he would have waited at his palace for us to drive up and get him. So we would have needed to send a very large force and might well have faced intensive combat inside the city. The artillery, tanks, and air power that performed so well for us in the open desert would not have been very useful inside a major city. That would have cost us dearly in terms of additional casualties. And I'm not sure what we would have done with Baghdad, once we had it.

But once we had prevailed and had toppled Saddam Hussein's government, we presumably would have had to stay there and put another government in place. And what would that have been: a Suni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government, or another Bathist regime? How long would US forces have been required to say in to prop the government up? And how effective could it have been if the government we put in had been perceived as a puppet of the US military?

My guess is that if we had gone to Baghdad, we'd still have US forces there today. And to involve American forces in a civil war inside Iraq would have been a quagmire, because we would have gone in there with no clear-cut military objective. It's just as important to know when not to use force as it is to know when to use it. And we got it right both times.

[ColoradoDarin]

well boy here it is ..........http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq050.htm
so now what shít head ?

From your own link (the USA Today timeline)
Last item:
Day 43: Wednesday, Feb. 27
President Bush declares suspension of offensive combat and lays out conditions for permanent cease-fire.

Exactly what I said, cease fire, not treaty.

And the UN Resolution 687

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;

And funny that you bring up Resolution 687, because Iraq not living up to it's obligations under 687 was the basis for 1441 and the 2nd Gulf War. Please note that 687 doesn't end the war, it just lays out the conditions that Iraq had to follow in order to end the war.

[maher_tyler]

did anyone else watch the video??

[ColoradoDarin]

Do you not understand what ""the war is over" means? Maybe you better do a little research and come back later when you're better armed to participate in a American history discussion.

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

Do you understand the difference between 2 countries signing a formal treaty and a president talking?

[ColoradoDarin]

Have fun boys, I'm off to watch Idol with my wife.

[Spider]

From your own link (the USA Today timeline)
Last item:


Exactly what I said, cease fire, not treaty. splitting hairs .......

And the UN Resolution 687



And funny that you bring up Resolution 687, because Iraq not living up to it's obligations under 687 was the basis for 1441 and the 2nd Gulf War. Please note that 687 doesn't end the war, it just lays out the conditions that Iraq had to follow in order to end the war.

Just what rules did Saddam break that justified invasion ?

[Willynowei]

North Korea and South Korea are both at war, technically. I don't see 500,000 NKs rushing into Seoul right now. I guess everybody dieing is not all that appealing of an option. But evidently according to some people, American's are willing to die b/c of a no-fly-zone infraction?

Well that sounds like a really ****ty reason to die for.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Do you understand the difference between 2 countries signing a formal treaty and a president talking?Oh, I got it, you're calling Bush a liar.

Explain to me when we declared war on Iraq (a formal declaration of war)?

I suggest you visit this thread to inform yourself a little better on some great quotes about war.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=56112

[Bronco_Beerslug]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/white_house/july-dec04/sep2_bush2_bush.jpg

FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/hwbush_09-02.html) I stopped doing so well not so many months after the war, and then when you got into the campaign, the Clinton campaign was very effective in saying foreign policy - this is paraphrasing - doesn't matter -- what does is the economy - it's the economy, stupid.
And they got in the cross hairs and you know, they in turn made out like the economy was horrible and it wasn't - so they did a very good job on that, but the war was over, and I say successfully, and we did what we said we were going to do, but people have forgotten that; maybe we should have raised it more, I don't know.

[Dagmar]

All I see is we went to war against a country who didn't have direct involvement with 9/11 over WMD's that didn't exist.

Now more Americans are dead than died in 9/11 because of this war.

And it has cost 450 billion dollars.

$450,000,000,000.

I would have prefered that money had gone to healthcare and education and those 3500 Americans would be alive.

[Willynowei]

All I see is we went to war against a country who didn't have direct involvement with 9/11 over WMD's that didn't exist.

Now more Americans are dead than died in 9/11 because of this war.

And it has cost 450 billion dollars.

$450,000,000,000.

I would have prefered that money had gone to healthcare and education and those 3500 Americans would be alive.

I would have prefered all of it going to pay off our debt.

Thats one thing I never understood, if we fought the war to keep the money a-float wouldn't we have been better off paying off the national debt?

[alkemical]

Why the War? The Kuwait Connection (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard151.html)


by Murray N. Rothbard
by Murray N. Rothbard


DIGG THIS

This essay originally appeared in the May 1991 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Why, exactly, did we go to war in the Gulf? The answer remains murky, but perhaps we can find one explanation by examining the strong and ominous Kuwait Connection in our government. (I am indebted to an excellent article in an obscure New York tabloid, Downtown, by Bob Feldman, "The Kissinger Affair," March 27.) The Sabahklatura that runs the Kuwait government is immensely wealthy, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, derived from tax/"royalty" loot extracted from oil producers simply because the Sabah tribe claims "sovereignty" over that valuable chunk of desert real estate. The Sabah tribe has no legitimate claim to the oil revenue; it did nothing to homestead or mix its labor or any other resource with the crude oil.

It is reasonable to assume that the Sabah family stands ready to use a modest portion of that ill-gotten wealth to purchase defenders and advocates in the powerful United States. We now focus our attention on the sinister but almost universally Beloved figure of Dr. Henry Kissinger, a lifelong spokesman, counselor, and servitor of the Rockefeller World Empire. Kissinger is so Beloved, in fact, that whenever he appears on Nightline or Crossfire he appears alone, since it seems to be lese majesté (or even blasphemy) for anyone to contradict the Great One's banal and ponderous Teutonic pronouncements. Only a handful of grumblers and malcontents on the extreme right and extreme left disturb this cozy consensus.

In 1954, the 31-year-old Kissinger, a Harvard political scientist and admirer of Metternich, was plucked out of his academic obscurity to become lifelong foreign policy advisor to New York Governor Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Doctor K continued in that august role until he assumed the mastery of foreign policy throughout the Nixon and Ford administrations. In that role, Kissinger played a major part in prolonging and extending the Vietnam War, and in the mass murder of civilians entailed by the terror bombings of Vietnam, the secret bombing of Cambodia, and the invasion of Laos.

Since leaving office in 1977, Dr. Kissinger has continued to play a highly influential role in U.S. politics, in the U.S. media, and in the Rockefeller world empire. It was Kissinger, along with David Rockefeller, who was decisive in the disastrous decision of President Carter to admit the recently toppled Shah of Iran, old friend and ally of the Rockefellers, into the United States, a decision that led directly to the Iranian hostage crisis and to Carter's downfall. Today, Kissinger still continues to serve as a trustee of the powerful Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as a counselor to Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan Bank, and as a member of Chase's International Advisory Committee. Kissinger's media influence is evident from his having served on the board of CBS, Inc., and having been a paid consultant to both NBC News and ABC News. That takes care of all three networks.

But Kissinger's major, and most lucrative role, has come as head of Kissinger Associates in New York City, founded on a loan obtained in 1982 from the international banking firm of E.M. Warburg, Pincus and Company. Nominally, Kissinger Associates (KA) is an "international consulting firm" but "consultant" covers many sins, and in KA's case, this means international political influence-peddling for its two dozen or so important corporate clients. In the fullest report on KA, Leslie Gelb in the New York Times Magazine for April 20, 1986, reveals that, in that year, 25 to 30 corporations paid KA between $150,000 and $420,000 each per annum for political influence and access. As Gelb blandly puts it: "The superstar international consultants [at KA] were certainly people who would get their telephone calls returned from high American government officials and who would also be able to get executives in to see foreign leaders." I dare say a lot more than mere access could be gained thereby. KA's offices in New York and Washington are small, but they pack a powerful punch. (Is it mere coincidence that KA's Park Avenue headquarters is in the same building as the local office of Chase Manhattan Bank's subsidiary, the Commercial Bank of Kuwait?)

Who were these "superstar international consultants?" One of them, who in 1986 was the vice chairman of KA, is none other than General Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor under President Ford, and, playing the exact same role under George Bush, serving as the chief architect of the Gulf War. One of the General's top clients was Kuwait's government-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, who paid Scowcroft for his services at least from 1984 through 1986. In addition, Scowcroft became a director of Santa Fe International (SFI) in the early 1980s, not long after SFI was purchased by the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation in 1981. Joining Scowcroft on the SFI board was Scowcroft's old boss, Gerald Ford. One of SFI's activities is drilling oil wells in Kuwait, an operation which, of course, had to be suspended after the Iraq invasion.

Brent Scowcroft, it is clear, has enjoyed a long-standing and lucrative Kuwait connection. Is it a coincidence that it was Scowcroft's National Security Council presentation on August 3, 1990, which according to the New York Times (February 21) "crystallized people's thinking and galvanized support" for a "strong response" to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait?

Scowcroft, by the way, does not exhaust the Republican administrations' revolving door among Kissinger Associates. Another top KA official, Lawrence Eagleburger, undersecretary of state under Reagan, has returned to high office after a stint at KA as deputy secretary of state under George Bush.

Also vitally important at KA are the members of its board of directors. One director is T. Jefferson Cunningham III, who is also a director of the Midland Bank of Britain, which has also been a KA client. The fascinating point here is that 10.5 percent of this $4 billion bank is owned by the Kuwait government. And Kissinger, as head of KA, is of course concerned to advance the interests of his clients – which include the Midland Bank and therefore the government of Kuwait. Does this connection have anything to do with Kissinger's ultra-hawkish views on the Gulf War? In the meantime, Kissinger continues to serve on President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which gives Kissinger not only a channel for giving advice but also gives him access to national security information which could prove useful to KA's corporate clients.

Another KA client is the Fluor Corporation, which has a special interest in Saudi Arabia. Shortly before the August 2 invasion, Saudi Arabia decided to launch a $30 to $40 billion project to expand oil production, and granted two huge oil contracts to the Parson and Fluor corporations. (New York Times, August 21)

One member of KA's board of directors is ARCO Chairman Robert O. Anderson; ARCO, also one of KA's clients, is engaged in joint oil-exploration and oil-drilling in offshore China with Santa Fe International, the subsidiary of the Kuwait government.

Other KA board members are William D. Rogers, undersecretary of state in the Eisenhower administration, and long-time leading Dewey-Rockefeller Republican in New York; former Citibank (Rockefeller) Chairman Edward Palmer; and Eric Lord Roll, economist and chairman of the board of the London international banking house of S.F. Warburg.

Perhaps the most interesting KA board member is one of the most Beloved figures in the conservative movement, William E. Simon, secretary of treasury in the Nixon and Ford administrations. When Simon left office in 1977, he became a consultant to the Bechtel Corporation, which has had the major massive construction contracts to build oil refineries and cities in Saudi Arabia. In addition, Simon became a consultant to Suliman Olayan, one of the wealthiest and most powerful businessmen in Saudi Arabia. Long a close associate of the oil-rich Saudi royal family, Olayan had served Bechtel well by getting it the multi-billion contract to build the oil city of Jubail. In 1980, furthermore, Olayan hired William Simon to be chairman of two investment firms owned jointly by himself and the influential Saudi Prince Khaled al Saud.

Bechtel, the Rockefellers, and the Saudi royal family have long had an intimate connection. After the Saudis granted the Rockefeller-dominated Aramco oil consortium the monopoly of oil in Saudi Arabia, the Rockefellers brought their pals at Bechtel in on the construction contracts. The Bechtel Corporation, of course, has also contributed George Shultz and Cap Weinberger to high office in Republican administrations. To complete the circle, KA director Simon's former boss Suliman Olayan was, in 1988, the largest shareholder in the Chase Manhattan Bank after David Rockefeller himself.

The pattern is clear. An old New Left slogan held that "you don't need a weatherman to tell you how the wind is blowing." In the same way, you don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to see what's going on here. All you have to do is be willing to use your eyes.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Copyright © 2007 Ludwig von Mises Institute
All rights reserved.

[maher_tyler]

IMO i thought the documentry/video made a lot of interesting FACTS...fire has never once made a building made of steel colapse like the wtc did...the fire was no where near hot enough to make the steel give out...it's obvious that it was a demolision..the whole 110 stroy building fell in 8-9 seconds...what about the squibs you can clearly see going off as the buildings fall?? What other facts do we need to prove that the gov't had something to do with it...why evacuate bldg 7 but not 1 and 2...why was FEMA there the night before the attacks...there are millions of questions to be asked...everyone is entitled to there own opinion and my opinion is that the gov't had something to do with the attacks on Sept 11, 2001.

[Spider]

IMO i thought the documentry/video made a lot of interesting FACTS...fire has never once made a building made of steel colapse like the wtc did...the fire was no where near hot enough to make the steel give out...it's obvious that it was a demolision..the whole 110 stroy building fell in 8-9 seconds...what about the squibs you can clearly see going off as the buildings fall?? What other facts do we need to prove that the gov't had something to do with it...why evacuate bldg 7 but not 1 and 2...why was FEMA there the night before the attacks...there are millions of questions to be asked...everyone is entitled to there own opinion and my opinion is that the gov't had something to do with the attacks on Sept 11, 2001.

where is the proof about FEMA being there before the attacks ? Wasnt alot of NYC poice , fire, transit authority located in the WTC ?
could that have something to do with FMA being there ?
they had time to evacuate building 7 , building 7 was no where near the size of the twin towers , alot less people in there , and the escape routes were still open , anything above the floors of the WTC that was hit was screwed ......
I have alot of questions about the pentagon , but so far the questions I have about the WTC have been answered ........
Biggest question about the pentagon is the lack of wreckage , luggage , shoes , bodies , etc ........ they even found paper work from the jets that hit the WTC , I just find it odd nothing was found at the pentagon ......

[Willynowei]

Yeah and thats what I assumed when the war started, clav.

But now the bill would be over half a trillion US dollars, not to mention the hit our economy takes. So in the end was it worth it? I don't thinkso. I don't think being closer friends with the oil princesses is worth that much.

[alkemical]

I know.... i know

[Willynowei]

IMO i thought the documentry/video made a lot of interesting FACTS...fire has never once made a building made of steel colapse like the wtc did...the fire was no where near hot enough to make the steel give out...it's obvious that it was a demolision..the whole 110 stroy building fell in 8-9 seconds...what about the squibs you can clearly see going off as the buildings fall?? What other facts do we need to prove that the gov't had something to do with it...why evacuate bldg 7 but not 1 and 2...why was FEMA there the night before the attacks...there are millions of questions to be asked...everyone is entitled to there own opinion and my opinion is that the gov't had something to do with the attacks on Sept 11, 2001.

I've never seen you post about this, so if you are thinking about buying into Mcgaffney's crap then I will attempt to save you, but just this once. I can't remember all the points but I can tell you the two biggest that get people "thinking".

You are right, the fire was not hot enough to melt the steel. All it had to do was make the steel malleable. Once that happened the beams bent inward, the weight of the floors drew heavy and increased the pressure on the beams. Pressure + heat = more bending. The support of the top floors gave in, all that weight fell, that multiplied the weight on the next level. Its like dominoes from that point, the heat had already weakened the structure enough, so it was free fall. 8-9 seconds makes perfect sense. Not to mention, if it were to have been an orchestrated bombing, that would've taken months to plan out by the best people in the business and the type of drilling and work going on would be enormous, they'd have to close down the parking lots of the trade centers for weeks.

The pentagon "hole" argument is also wrong. The size of the plane given was the hangar size, from wing tip to wing tip, wheel to top of plane and from nose to tail. The structure of the plain outside of a large cylinder in the middle that housed the passanger was made out of light materials. Thus, it punched a much smaller hole than the hangar size. A lot of photos were confiscated by the Feds at the scene, but from the ones available on the internet, clearly the engine from I believe it was GE has been identified. Scraps of light metals were all over the place. The wreckage argument is also invalid.

The second of the Twin towers was not evacuated immediately b/c no one knew it was an orchastrated terrorist attack to come in tandem and strike both buildings. People were still trying to figure out what was going on. Building 7 was evacuated later.

[Spider]

A lot of photos were confiscated by the Feds at the scene, but from the ones available on the internet, clearly the engine from I believe it was GE has been identified. Scraps of light metals were all over the place. The wreckage argument is also invalid.



the rest of your post I will agree with except this part .........
<a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=715373033">Pentagon - Aired Only Once!</a><br><embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=715373033&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed><br><a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.addToProfileConfirm&videoid=715373033&title=Pentagon - Aired Only Once!">Add to My Profile</a> | <a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.home"> More Videos</a>

[Willynowei]

the rest of your post I will agree with except this part .........
<a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=715373033">Pentagon - Aired Only Once!</a><br><embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=715373033&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed><br><a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.addToProfileConfirm&videoid=715373033&title=Pentagon - Aired Only Once!">Add to My Profile</a> | <a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.home"> More Videos</a>

Airplane debris same color as the jet.
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/9351/yourownevidenceyo1.jpg
Landing gear debris
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/4216/landinggear002pl3.jpg
The rim of the wheel
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/4041/rim1az2.jpg
Debris of the exterior
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/1147/hullpartna9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Debris of the Engine
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/8243/damage9nl1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The newsman said "no tail sections, wing sections, everything is small enough to pick up by hand".

Well, tail and wing sections, right, like i said, light materials that turn into miniature debris. On the other hand, you can clearly see landing gear the size of half a human being there, and the engine strip is there as well.

Its not hard to put together a case saying its all staged when very few pictures are available. BUT, I think its pretty easy to understand why the government would not want pictures of the Pentagon circulating every where.

[Bronco Bob]

Hell, even Gaffney concedes it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon,
and has gone off on a different tact that it was a radio controlled
airplane.

[Willynowei]

Hell, even Gaffney concedes it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon,
and has gone off on a different tact that it was a radio controlled
airplane.

lol is he really saying that?

[Bronco Bob]

lol is he really saying that?

Read the thread entitled:

"the 911 mystery plane: IDENTIFIED"

It's about 5 pages back.

[Spider]

ok I will concede that point for now ........

[Spider]

the reporter didnt get to look inside the pentagon right away , just the outside of it .......with that said , I still doubt the official story ..........but I have nothing else to prove different

[W*GS]

In regards to 9/11 specifically, Wolman's comments are nothing but a bunch of regurgitated articles of faith of the whackitude. All have been proven wrong.

Snore.

[clarkster]

I've noticed -- in this offseason --- that posters have been ranging far and wide. So the following is certainly apropos.

This piece went up on the web last February -- but it's still timely.

I should say I don't agree with the author on every point. However, on the whole I have to say "Bravo!" MHG

February 17, 2007 at 10:36:26

Why the resistance to 9-11 truth?

by Carol Wolman

http://www.opednews.com

Anyone who has studied 9-11 at all knows it was an inside job.

Bush was not surprised. His brother Marvin's security company closed down one tower the week before and brought in lots of cables and other equipment. The towers, including building 7, were dropped by controlled demolition. The planes provided a dramatic cover story- great pix.

Rumsfeld had control of scrambling planes transferred to himself, exclusively, a few months before, and then disappeared that morning, so no planes intercepted the four hijacked airliners. Instead, there was a "stand-down" of NORAD. By some strange coincidence, a military exercise was being run that am which simulated planes crashing into buildings, so that the air traffic controllers were confused about whether the "attack" was real or part of a drill.

The buildings were pulverized, but the passports of the hijackers were miraculously thrown clear and quickly "discovered". There was no investigation, only a coverup that blamed the CIA and recommended police state measures to prevent future "attacks".

Then there's the lack of plane parts and small hole at the Pentagon. The flying out of the Bin Laden family the next day. The millions made on selling airline stocks short by those in the know. The confusion about passenger lists. The rejection of FBI reports about possible terrorists at US flying schools. And on and on.

There are so many videos that its hard to choose, but my favorites is 9-11 Mysteries at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 If you are not certain that 9-11 was an inside job, please watch this video. It's 1 1/2 hours of factual material that will convince you. You owe it to yourself and all the rest of us to learn the truth about 9-11.

Most Americans, even those who are working for peace and impeachment, are reluctant to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest actually planned and implemented 9-11, even though their long range plan (PNAC) clearly states that they need "a new Pearl Harbor". The Reichstag fire is a better parallel, since it was also an inside job.

Polls show widespread skepticism of the cover story, and suspicion that Bush allowed 9-11 to happen, ignoring warnings from abroad and from his own intelligence service. But to think that he actually helped plan it, that demolition charges were set in the Towers by his brother's company- that is a depth of evil that most of us can't even begin to contemplate.

Why is this? Why, when we all know so well what liars and connivers the Bush people are, how little they care for human life, or truth, or honor, how greedy they are for power and how ruthless they are in pursuing it, why is it so hard to believe that they planned and carried out 9-11?

The degree of denial is astounding.

The cover story is paper thin. Osama was blamed within 24 hours, with no investigation. It's obvious that the 9-11 Commission asked the wrong question,- not whodunit, but why were the signals missed? It's obvious that Osama, no matter how bright and charismatic, could not have orchestrated such a massive attack from caves in Afghanistan. It's obvious that the Saudi hijackers, if that's who they were, were allowed into this country with no screening, allowed to take flight lessons, allowed to get on airplanes with box cutters- but how could all this be known, when the twin towers were pulverized? Etc. etc.

When denial is so strong, it's because people don't want to know the truth. The implications are too overwhelming, too frightening. Facing the truth about 9-11, that it was an inside job, planned and carried out with the help of the Bush family and administration, means facing the fact that we are saddled with a monster, a satanic creature, that will stop at nothing to gain total power.

It means facing what fools we are, what cowards we are, not to call a spade a spade.

It means seeing through the pious cloak of false Christianity and false patriotism that Bush has assumed.

It means facing the terrible danger we are in, of losing every ounce of precious freedom our forefathers fought so hard to obtain, and that we so take for granted.

It means looking frankly at our helplessness, our gullibility, our willingness to accept any form of hypocrisy, as long as we are allowed to go on shopping.

It means realizing that Bush controls vast portions of our society- that many people must know that 9-11 was an inside job, and won't step forward and say so, out of bribery, intimidation, or both. A few brave souls have spoken up about the "power down" at the towers the week before, the evacuation of building 7 several hours before it, too, was brought down by preplanted demolition charges, the confusion at air traffic control when NORAD failed to intercept the planes that were so far off course- but not many dare to speak out. Why not?

It means realizing that the situation is so dire that we need help from a higher power, and should start praying, as sailors do when the ship is sinking.

Six years after 9-11, We the People are starting to recognize that we, too, have power. Some of us have been praying steadily, and the fruits are starting to show.

We've seen through the lies that took us into Iraq, and understand more about Bush's hypocrisy, and willingness to "fix the facts around the policy" as the Downing Street memo puts it. Osama is another convenient "fact", like WMD's in Iraq.

We've seen that we have been blessed with the internet, with which to hunt for the truth, disseminate it, work with one another to reach new depths of understanding of our situation.

We've come to understand that under our precious Constitution, We the People are sovereign, and don't have to tolerate another King George.

We've won an election, despite all the dirty tricks and voting machine fraud. We've even pushed the incoming Congress to censure Bush.

Our higher power has helped us all along to value truth above convenience, to fight with words rather than guns, to operate out of love for each other and future generations.

Perhaps now we are ready to face the truth about 9-11. The whole "war on terror" is based on 9-11, and is seen for the sham it is, once we realize it was an inside job. Once we do, our outrage will be so great that we will force Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney, the real hijackers.

In the name of the Prince of Peace, Carol Wolman


http://voteCarolWolmanforCongress.com

Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is actively working to impeach Bush and Cheney, and suggests you join or form a local group at http://impeachbush.meetup.com/ She ran for Congress as a nonpartisan write-in candidate in CA district 1, and is a coordinator of The Longhouse Coalition.

que the organ grinder...

[theAPAOps5]

Hell, even Gaffney concedes it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon,
and has gone off on a different tact that it was a radio controlled
airplane.

Wasn't it being flown by Chaney as well?

[alkemical]

Wasn't it being flown by Chaney as well?


What people don't know, is that Dick & Lon are the same cheney. Every so often, he molts. Now i know this sounds wierd, but being a reptile person - this is what happens. What the reptoids can do though, is change your perception of what you see about their perception. Soon we will here that he's dead, but really it's just soon time for the next molting of cheney to appear.

[theAPAOps5]

What people don't know, is that Dick & Lon are the same cheney. Every so often, he molts. Now i know this sounds wierd, but being a reptile person - this is what happens. What the reptoids can do though, is change your perception of what you see about their perception. Soon we will here that he's dead, but really it's just soon time for the next molting of cheney to appear.

Ha!

[The Lone Bolt]

Creature from the Black Lagoon was pretty damn scary for it's time. I'd love to see a remake!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Creature from the Black Lagoon was pretty damn scary for it's time. I'd love to see a remake!That was Cheney too.









http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/568/creaturetimesblacklagootr5.jpg

[maher_tyler]

I've never seen you post about this, so if you are thinking about buying into Mcgaffney's crap then I will attempt to save you, but just this once. I can't remember all the points but I can tell you the two biggest that get people "thinking".

You are right, the fire was not hot enough to melt the steel. All it had to do was make the steel malleable. Once that happened the beams bent inward, the weight of the floors drew heavy and increased the pressure on the beams. Pressure + heat = more bending. The support of the top floors gave in, all that weight fell, that multiplied the weight on the next level. Its like dominoes from that point, the heat had already weakened the structure enough, so it was free fall. 8-9 seconds makes perfect sense. Not to mention, if it were to have been an orchestrated bombing, that would've taken months to plan out by the best people in the business and the type of drilling and work going on would be enormous, they'd have to close down the parking lots of the trade centers for weeks.

The pentagon "hole" argument is also wrong. The size of the plane given was the hangar size, from wing tip to wing tip, wheel to top of plane and from nose to tail. The structure of the plain outside of a large cylinder in the middle that housed the passanger was made out of light materials. Thus, it punched a much smaller hole than the hangar size. A lot of photos were confiscated by the Feds at the scene, but from the ones available on the internet, clearly the engine from I believe it was GE has been identified. Scraps of light metals were all over the place. The wreckage argument is also invalid.

The second of the Twin towers was not evacuated immediately b/c no one knew it was an orchastrated terrorist attack to come in tandem and strike both buildings. People were still trying to figure out what was going on. Building 7 was evacuated later.

How do you explain the explosions people inside the building heard before the planes even hit in the basement...what about that lobby downstairs that was all jacked up before the plane ever hit..what about the empty floors nobody worked on and in those exact floors people working there heard loud noises and what not enough to shake the whole floor...what happened to the core of the building...there is noway in hell you can make me believe steel beams that big with an uncontroled fire can get hot enough to get those beams to bend/melt etc enough to bring the whole building down, the buildings were just smoking for 90 minutes which like the video says isn't getting enough oxygen...there have been buildings that have burned up to 20 hours and didn't collapse..the one was still strong enough to hold a crane on top...what about the sulfur residue they found in and around ground zero...why shut down all the security systems 4-6 weeks before the attacks...why no bomb sniffing dogs 3 days before the attacks...there was no reason building 7 should have fallen to the ground...there were only small fires reported in that building...that is the first building in history to fall because of fire...i'm just looking at the facts..just my opinion!!

[Willynowei]

How do you explain the explosions people inside the building heard before the planes even hit in the basement...what about that lobby downstairs that was all jacked up before the plane ever hit..what about the empty floors nobody worked on and in those exact floors people working there heard loud noises and what not enough to shake the whole floor...what happened to the core of the building...there is noway in hell you can make me believe steel beams that big with an uncontroled fire can get hot enough to get those beams to bend/melt etc enough to bring the whole building down, the buildings were just smoking for 90 minutes which like the video says isn't getting enough oxygen...there have been buildings that have burned up to 20 hours and didn't collapse..the one was still strong enough to hold a crane on top...what about the sulfur residue they found in and around ground zero...why shut down all the security systems 4-6 weeks before the attacks...why no bomb sniffing dogs 3 days before the attacks...there was no reason building 7 should have fallen to the ground...there were only small fires reported in that building...that is the first building in history to fall because of fire...i'm just looking at the facts..just my opinion!!


See... you are already lost.

You're just pulling out anything you can, I'm not going to take my time to answer those questions since most of that can be answered with very basic knowledge and a little intuition.

Have fun with your fantasies.

[mhgaffney]

See... you are already lost.

You're just pulling out anything you can, I'm not going to take my time to answer those questions since most of that can be answered with very basic knowledge and a little intuition.

Have fun with your fantasies.

Fantasies? No, you are the one who's lost.

Anyone who would dismiss the testimony of 500+ eyewitnesses has no credibilty whatsoever. That's just plain denial.

In August 2005 the city of New York released the eyewitness accounts of more than 500 firemen, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), and police who were at the WTC on 911. The city had suppressed their testimony for nearly four years. The tapes were not available for the NIST investigation -- nor were they available to the 9/11 Commission.

It was the families of the victims of the WTC collapse who pursued this -- They sued NYC and eventually won a court ruling -- forcing the city to release the tapes. Now why do you think NYC would suppress all of that testimony? (three guesses)

The tapes are now available on the New York Times web site. Anyone can download the pdf files and check out the many accounts of people who were there on 9/11 and heard, saw and felt bombs going off in the WTC.

If it didn't happen why would all of those people lie? Were they all high on LSD? Temember, these were professional responders -- not just the man in the street. No, they didn't lie -- nor were they on drugs -- they described what they saw/heard -- namely, explosions ripping through the building.

The people on this Orange Mane board -- like you -- who dismiss them are just plain fools. Your denial is a disgrace to the thousands of innocent people who died in the towers.

Don't take it from me. Check out the testimony here
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Also here
http://www.organicconsumers.org/politics/911012306.cfm

And watch a short video here. You can actually hear the explosions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7094370627958457222

[maher_tyler]

Fantasies? No, you are the one who's lost.

Anyone who would dismiss the testimony of 500+ eyewitnesses has no credibilty whatsoever. That's just plain denial.

In August 2005 the city of New York released the eyewitness accounts of more than 500 firemen, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), and police who were at the WTC on 911. The city had suppressed their testimony for nearly four years. The tapes were not available for the NIST investigation -- nor were they available to the 9/11 Commission.

It was the families of the victims of the WTC collapse who pursued this -- They sued NYC and eventually won a court ruling -- forcing the city to release the tapes. Now why do you think NYC would suppress all of that testimony? (three guesses)

The tapes are now available on the New York Times web site. Anyone can download the pdf files and check out the many accounts of people who were there on 9/11 and heard, saw and felt bombs going off in the WTC.

If it didn't happen why would all of those people lie? Were they all high on LSD? Temember, these were professional responders -- not just the man in the street. No, they didn't lie -- nor were they on drugs -- they described what they saw/heard -- namely, explosions ripping through the building.

The people on this Orange Mane board -- like you -- who dismiss them are just plain fools. Your denial is a disgrace to the thousands of innocent people who died in the towers.

Don't take it from me. Check out the testimony here
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Also here
http://www.organicconsumers.org/politics/911012306.cfm

And watch a short video here. You can actually hear the explosions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7094370627958457222

Your right...i bet all those fire fighters and police men that said they heard explosions were ****ed up off LSD..prolly sniffed markers and glue before going on duty. The facts are right there infront of them and yet they still deny it...the truth hurts!!

[Spider]

I dont know if I buy that , but what I do buy is , Bush's handlers had to get Bush in power , show him to be a leader , after all everyone was still talking about the SCOTUS decision to get him elected , and it was split decision at that , then they get this memo Bin Laden determined to attack the US .... so this is their new pearl Harbor , get the president to be a war president , we can pretty much sell PNAC plan ........ But something went wrong , the damage was much worse then they thought .. oh well off to Iraq we go .......

[Hotrod]

So the firefighters heard the mini-nukes going off??? Oddly I've heard of zero radiation sickness. I guess mini-nukes are safer like light cigerettes???

[Bronco Bob]

So the firefighters heard the mini-nukes going off??? Oddly I've heard of zero radiation sickness. I guess mini-nukes are safer like light cigerettes???

According to Gaffney the mini-nukes are mini hydrogen bombs.
But these hydrogen bomb somehow don't use a fission trigger.
As such they wouldn't produce any radiation. He has still
to explain what was used to set them off, in that to date
every hydrogen bomb ever exploded used a fission trigger,
which does produce radiation.

[Tom H.]

A Critical Analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1,2 and 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint. (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)

[sirhcyennek81]

Its easier to believe a highly improbable lie, like the government was behind it, then complete truth. I am sure people believed that FDR purposely knew Hawaii was going to be attacked and let it happen, difference is...no internet then to connect the nutbags...


:Broncos:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Aw man! I thought that this thread was going to be a reported session of the Gaffer's visit to his shrink.

Gaffer, you got my hopes up only for them to be smashed. At least I got to imagine I was eating Alec's BBQ.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Aw man! I thought that this thread was going to be a reported session of the Gaffer's visit to his shrink.

Gaffer, you got my hopes up only for them to be smashed. At least I got to imagine I was eating Alec's BBQ.Have you written Dirk's apology letter to America yet?

[alkemical]

Its easier to believe a highly improbable lie, like the government was behind it, then complete truth. I am sure people believed that FDR purposely knew Hawaii was going to be attacked and let it happen, difference is...no internet then to connect the nutbags...


:Broncos:

Maybe the opposite is true. Perhaps it's easier to believe that the people we have in power, have our best interest(s) at heart - and wouldnt' do anything to keep or expand power/money. So it's easier to just believe in some random "bad guy" just to focus our attention on.

[sirhcyennek81]

Maybe the opposite is true. Perhaps it's easier to believe that the people we have in power, have our best interest(s) at heart - and wouldnt' do anything to keep or expand power/money. So it's easier to just believe in some random "bad guy" just to focus our attention on.


Its ridiculous to me that the left cannot come up with anything more original then blaming the right for it. Logic goes out the window when you argue with a liberal, because logic is based on facts. The facts are simple. 19 muslim, arabic men got into the US prior to Bush becoming president on school visas. They got jobs, apartments, settled here, became "American" They get a message for Jihad, and on 9/11 board 4 airplanes with round trip tickets and hijacked them. They had a 75% success rate in hitting their intended targets, they murdered 3,000 people. Our government did not do this, no matter how much people squeal about "mini nukes" and that fire cant melt steel. Yes it can, it happened in california last week when a truck transporting fuel overturned and caught fire...melting the steel in the highway overpass...To say it was an inside job mocks the deaths of the innocents on the planes and the buildings, you might as well agree with the muslims who spread around the rumor anyone who was Jewish got a "mystery message" to ignore the Pentagon and WTC on the morning of 9/11.


:Broncos:

[mhgaffney]

Its easier to believe a highly improbable lie, like the government was behind it, then complete truth. I am sure people believed that FDR purposely knew Hawaii was going to be attacked and let it happen, difference is...no internet then to connect the nutbags...
:Broncos:

Sir, here some facts that maybe you didn't know.

According to US law, to qualify for a pilot's license in the US a person must speak and write English.

Hani Hanjour, who supposedly flew Flight 77 into the pentagon, could do neither. When Hani showed up at an airport in Bowie Maryland one month before September 11 to rent a Cessna -- he could barely communicate with the woman at the front desk. She later stated she was incredulous to learn he had a pilot's license.

The airport has a policy: they require a simple flight test before they will rent a plane. But Hani flunked this test so bad they told him -- "Don't even bother to come back..."

In short, Hani couldn't even fly a Cessna, which is the simplest plane to fly in existence. Yet, according to the official 9/11 story this incompetent not only flew Flight 77 -- he did a top gunn maneuver -- spiraling down 7,000 feet in elevation, then a final approach just a few feet off the ground.

So, which is the "highly improbable lie"? Obviously, the official story.

Next time do some homework BEFORE you start throwing insults.
MHG

[mhgaffney]

Its ridiculous to me that the left cannot come up with anything more original then blaming the right for it. Logic goes out the window when you argue with a liberal, because logic is based on facts. The facts are simple. 19 muslim, arabic men got into the US prior to Bush becoming president on school visas. They got jobs, apartments, settled here, became "American" They get a message for Jihad, and on 9/11 board 4 airplanes with round trip tickets and hijacked them. They had a 75% success rate in hitting their intended targets, they murdered 3,000 people. Our government did not do this, no matter how much people squeal about "mini nukes" and that fire cant melt steel. Yes it can, it happened in california last week when a truck transporting fuel overturned and caught fire...melting the steel in the highway overpass...To say it was an inside job mocks the deaths of the innocents on the planes and the buildings, you might as well agree with the muslims who spread around the rumor anyone who was Jewish got a "mystery message" to ignore the Pentagon and WTC on the morning of 9/11.
:Broncos:


More cliches and shallow sound bytes that you probably heard on FOX or CNN.

This is not about left and right -- it's about right and wrong. Some of the most closed minded people live on the left. They are in denial just as deep as knee jerks like you.

You are living under the mis perception that the USA stands for democracy and freedom and liberty. That's a lie.

We now know that the US intelligence community organized a terror network across Europe after WW II, also in South America, the Mideast -- in fact -- world wide. They kept it secret for half a century. The American people still don't know -- because the US press has failed us.

It was called Operation Gladio in Europe. In S America it was called Operation Condor. These secret terror groups made a practice of subverting democratic processes. Instilling fear was often the goal -- and they succeeded.

US support for jihadist groups was also a part of this world wide effort. The CIA found it easy to penetrate these groups and manipulate them. This is what happened on 9/11. It wasn't a security failure. That's a misnomer. No, from the standpoint of covert ops 9/11 was a great success.

This is what you need to understand. There is some doubt, however, about whether you have the mental capacaity to wrap your little mind around something as big as this. Because it's huge.


MHG

[sirhcyennek81]

More cliches and shallow sound bytes that you probably heard on FOX or CNN.

This is not about left and right -- it's about right and wrong. Some of the most closed minded people live on the left. They are in denial just as deep as knee jerks like you.

You are living under the mis perception that the USA stands for democracy and freedom and liberty. That's a lie.

We now know that the US intelligence community organized a terror network across Europe after WW II, also in South America, the Mideast -- in fact -- world wide. They kept it secret for half a century. The American people still don't know -- because the US press has failed us.

It was called Operation Gladio in Europe. In S America it was called Operation Condor. These secret terror groups made a practice of subverting democratic processes. Instilling fear was often the goal -- and they succeeded.

US support for jihadist groups was also a part of this world wide effort. The CIA found it easy to penetrate these groups and manipulate them. This is what happened on 9/11. It wasn't a security failure. That's a misnomer. No, from the standpoint of covert ops 9/11 was a great success.

This is what you need to understand. There is some doubt, however, about whether you have the mental capacaity to wrap your little mind around something as big as this. Because it's huge.


MHG


Resorting to name calling is juvenile, so even if you had a point to make, you lost it when you resorted to school yard tactics. I am sure you probably heard of these "secret american terror" groups from some left leaning blogosphere funded by communist organizations and or left leaning American billionaires. Its easier for you to blame the US for every little thing that goes wrong in the world then to actually think someone who is non white/non american had something to do with it. So continue scouring the internet looking for topics that support your lexicon of hypocrisy. Without basis in fact, you simply lack any legitimacy.

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

Sir, here some facts that maybe you didn't know.

According to US law, to qualify for a pilot's license in the US a person must speak and write English.

Hani Hanjour, who supposedly flew Flight 77 into the pentagon, could do neither. When Hani showed up at an airport in Bowie Maryland one month before September 11 to rent a Cessna -- he could barely communicate with the woman at the front desk. She later stated she was incredulous to learn he had a pilot's license.

The airport has a policy: they require a simple flight test before they will rent a plane. But Hani flunked this test so bad they told him -- "Don't even bother to come back..."

In short, Hani couldn't even fly a Cessna, which is the simplest plane to fly in existence. Yet, according to the official 9/11 story this incompetent not only flew Flight 77 -- he did a top gunn maneuver -- spiraling down 7,000 feet in elevation, then a final approach just a few feet off the ground.

So, which is the "highly improbable lie"? Obviously, the official story.

Next time do some homework BEFORE you start throwing insults.
MHG


Grasp straws, its all you have left.


:Broncos:

[yavoon]

come on ppl now:

[alkemical]

Its ridiculous to me that the left cannot come up with anything more original then blaming the right for it. Logic goes out the window when you argue with a liberal, because logic is based on facts. The facts are simple. 19 muslim, arabic men got into the US prior to Bush becoming president on school visas. They got jobs, apartments, settled here, became "American" They get a message for Jihad, and on 9/11 board 4 airplanes with round trip tickets and hijacked them. They had a 75% success rate in hitting their intended targets, they murdered 3,000 people. Our government did not do this, no matter how much people squeal about "mini nukes" and that fire cant melt steel. Yes it can, it happened in california last week when a truck transporting fuel overturned and caught fire...melting the steel in the highway overpass...To say it was an inside job mocks the deaths of the innocents on the planes and the buildings, you might as well agree with the muslims who spread around the rumor anyone who was Jewish got a "mystery message" to ignore the Pentagon and WTC on the morning of 9/11.


:Broncos:


Well since i'm not a liberal - i don't have to bother responding - since well it seems you assume to have all the answers - and how you project and superimpose things i've never said. So kindly "**** You".

Thanks!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I find it amusing there actually are some Bush apologists still left!



:thumbsup: ^5

It's even more amusing/amazing that they have the audacity to show themselves on a public forum. :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More cliches and shallow sound bytes that you probably heard on FOX or CNN.

This is not about left and right -- it's about right and wrong. Some of the most closed minded people live on the left. They are in denial just as deep as knee jerks like you.

You are living under the mis perception that the USA stands for democracy and freedom and liberty. That's a lie.

We now know that the US intelligence community organized a terror network across Europe after WW II, also in South America, the Mideast -- in fact -- world wide. They kept it secret for half a century. The American people still don't know -- because the US press has failed us.

It was called Operation Gladio in Europe. In S America it was called Operation Condor. These secret terror groups made a practice of subverting democratic processes. Instilling fear was often the goal -- and they succeeded.

US support for jihadist groups was also a part of this world wide effort. The CIA found it easy to penetrate these groups and manipulate them. This is what happened on 9/11. It wasn't a security failure. That's a misnomer. No, from the standpoint of covert ops 9/11 was a great success.

This is what you need to understand. There is some doubt, however, about whether you have the mental capacaity to wrap your little mind around something as big as this. Because it's huge.


MHG

Props to you for your tireless attempts to reason with ostriches.

The people with whom you're arguing remind me of kids in disturbed family who compulsively defend and make excuses for their abusive, drunken father.

Homeostatic equilibrium is the rule.

You're especially right on the money when you say this is ultimately about right and wrong (vs. right or left.) Our political system has become nothing more than a puppet show; a sort of theater designed to maintain the appearance of a representative government that functions according to the ideals of the founders when, in fact, it has become nothing but an instrument by which a corporate slave state is being incrementally established.

[W*GS]

Props to you for your tireless attempts to reason with ostriches.

There are a great many better ways to criticize the Bush administration and the entire government than promoting the whack-job that 9/11 was an inside job by the State.

[Rohirrim]

IMO, Gaff does the Bush cabal and their corporate masters a favor with his Fox Mulder act. I sometimes wonder if he's not a plant (in more way than one) sent out into the internets to spread his distractions; A form of mind candy for the suspicious masses. ;D

http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/06/25/hamster.gif

[orangeatheist]

I'm serious, mhgaffney: Have you visited the JREF forums yet? You have a small audience here of folks who really don't have the technical expertise to properly debate you (no offense to those who have tried). I'm not saying you make a convincing argument but you've obviously convinced yourself and you're getting no where here.

Why don't you register at JREF (http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php) and give your threads a whirl in the Conspiracy Theories forum?

[orangeatheist]

Sir, here some facts that maybe you didn't know.

According to US law, to qualify for a pilot's license in the US a person must speak and write English.

Hani Hanjour, who supposedly flew Flight 77 into the pentagon, could do neither. When Hani showed up at an airport in Bowie Maryland one month before September 11 to rent a Cessna -- he could barely communicate with the woman at the front desk. She later stated she was incredulous to learn he had a pilot's license.

The airport has a policy: they require a simple flight test before they will rent a plane. But Hani flunked this test so bad they told him -- "Don't even bother to come back..."

In short, Hani couldn't even fly a Cessna, which is the simplest plane to fly in existence. Yet, according to the official 9/11 story this incompetent not only flew Flight 77 -- he did a top gunn maneuver -- spiraling down 7,000 feet in elevation, then a final approach just a few feet off the ground.

So, which is the "highly improbable lie"? Obviously, the official story.

Next time do some homework BEFORE you start throwing insults.
MHG

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

[Rohirrim]

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the ****ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/


Once again, the Gaffneys of the world simply ignore that evidence which doesn't point them where they want to go.

[The Lone Bolt]

I'm serious, mhgaffney: Have you visited the JREF forums yet? You have a small audience here of folks who really don't have the technical expertise to properly debate you (no offense to those who have tried). I'm not saying you make a convincing argument but you've obviously convinced yourself and you're getting no where here.

Why don't you register at JREF (http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php) and give your threads a whirl in the Conspiracy Theories forum?

I made a similar challenge to a far far far left friend of mine to try shoveling his Chomskyan distortions about Israel on a Israel forum loaded with posters clearly very knowledgable on the subject (far more so then myself). He of course declined, claiming that they were all a bunch of "pro-zionist apologists."::)

No suprise that extremists like Gaff and my buddy Brian run in the other direction when faced with debating qualified experts. They are much more comfortable portraying themselves as "experts" to us laypeople, so they can tout their superiority while avoiding a real challenge that might undermine their beliefs.

[Rohirrim]

911 isn't the Gaff's only schtick.

http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2006/07/forbidden-archaeology-pseudo.html

[alkemical]

I actually think Atlantis is a pre-cognative place.

[orangeatheist]

911 isn't the Gaff's only schtick.

http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2006/07/forbidden-archaeology-pseudo.html


Ok. Well, that did it for me. I was mildly interested in his 9/11 conspiracy and thought he'd be interested in having his ideas debated. But to find out this guy challenges the antiquity of human civilization and buys into the Atlantis myth...he really is over the top. I wonder if everyone who sucked into Rense gets this delusional. I had hoped not because my brother's a big fan of that site. He's also sent me links to LooseChange which has been flushed by experts. I fear I've lost my brother to these wacko's too. Man, I was really hoping not to believe that....My cry for Gaff to go to JREF, I suppose, was actually a cry to win my brother back. *sigh* I feel like an only child now.

[mhgaffney]

I am sure you probably heard of these "secret american terror" groups from some left leaning blogosphere funded by communist organizations and or left leaning American billionaires. Its easier for you to blame the US for every little thing that goes wrong in the world then to actually think someone who is non white/non american had something to do with it. So continue scouring the internet looking for topics that support your lexicon of hypocrisy. Without basis in fact, you simply lack any legitimacy.


No on all counts. The scandal about CIA/NATO's clandestine terror network exploded in every nation of Europe in 1990 during the run up to the first Gulf War. It was a huge scandal in Europe -- but the news of it never crossed the Atlantic.

The EU condemned the US and UK's secret rogue operation that went on for 45 years -- subverted democratic institutions for 45 years in at least 16 countries. The covert operations involved coups, assassinations, bombs, disinfo, bribery, blackmail on and on.

In Germany the CIA used former Nazis and SS members. It Italy we used the coas nostra and mob elements. In Turkey we allied with a blatantly fascist group.

But the story was never reported here in the US, which is why naive people like you are clue less. In fact, 17 years later, it still has not been reported here in our "free" press.

Check out Daniele Ganser's book. It will stand your hair on end.

NATO'S Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and terrorism in Western Europe
Frank Cass, London/New York, 2005

Ganser is a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies at the federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland.

[mhgaffney]

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the ****ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/


Once again, the Gaffneys of the world simply ignore that evidence which doesn't point them where they want to go.


You comments are all smoke. Have you read the 911 Commission Report, Rohirrim?

Those of us who have read it know it's at best a partial record and at worst a complete fabrication.

As Allen Dulles reportedly said during the investigation of the Warren Commission. He was on the Commission and said somethkng to the effect "Don't worry, [we know the report is a complete white wash] but Americans don't read reports..."

Dulles was right at the time. And nothing has changed.

As for the flying -- Colin Scoggins told me that Flight 175 did an incredible maneuver before it hit the WTC. Joe Vials had reported this earlier -- but Scoggins confirmed it. He was in a position on 911 to know.

[Bronco Bob]

As Allen Dulles reportedly said during the investigation of the Warren Commission. He was on the Commission and said somethkng to the effect "Don't worry, [we know the report is a complete white wash] but Americans don't read reports..."



Speaking of the Kennedy Assassination, Vincent Bugliosi, after 20 years
of research on the subject, has written a new book on the Kenney
Assassination entitled: Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In case you aren't familiar with Vincent Bugliosi, he was the prosecutor in
the Charles Manson trial, and went on to write the best seller "Helter Skelter.
In his new book, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy, after 20 years of research and pouring over a multitude of
documents, he comes to the startling and surprising conclusion that it
was Lee Harvey Oswald who killed John F. Kennedy, and that Oswald acted
alone. Before you knee-jerk reject the book out of hand, I suggest you
read it first with an open mind and then only afterwards draw your own
conclusions.

[yavoon]

Speaking of the Kennedy Assassination, Vincent Bugliosi, after 20 years
of research on the subject, has written a new book on the Kenney
Assassination entitled: Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In case you aren't familiar with Vincent Bugliosi, he was the prosecutor in
the Charles Manson trial, and went on to write the best seller "Helter Skelter.
In his new book, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy, after 20 years of research and pouring over a multitude of
documents, he comes to the startling and surprising conclusion that it
was Lee Harvey Oswald who killed John F. Kennedy, and that Oswald acted
alone. Before you knee-jerk reject the book out of hand, I suggest you
read it first with an open mind and then only afterwards draw your own
conclusions.

only sheeple would believe that. u just dont know how deep the rabbit hole goes!

[Rohirrim]

You comments are all smoke. Have you read the 911 Commission Report, Rohirrim?

Those of us who have read it know it's at best a partial record and at worst a complete fabrication.

As Allen Dulles reportedly said during the investigation of the Warren Commission. He was on the Commission and said somethkng to the effect "Don't worry, [we know the report is a complete white wash] but Americans don't read reports..."

Dulles was right at the time. And nothing has changed.

As for the flying -- Colin Scoggins told me that Flight 175 did an incredible maneuver before it hit the WTC. Joe Vials had reported this earlier -- but Scoggins confirmed it. He was in a position on 911 to know.

Like I said, you simply ignore that evidence which doesn't point you in the direction you want to go.