Top 10 reasons I don't believe the official 9/11 story

[Mr. Mel]

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 93938 responses

Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day. 67%

No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11. 27%

I'm not sure. 5.4%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/

 

[UGA12]

These questions can't be answered yes or no. Sorry. Since i am forced to i will do it your silly way
1. No
2. No
3. maybe

:mj07: Got to admit sponge this was not a series of answers I expected. It wasnt or government or extremist. Thank you for answering the yes no's and I would seriously like to hear what you think really happened.

 

[Mr. Mel]

Here you go a 'reputable' source

Here you go a 'reputable' source

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.
Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)
That's only slightly less than the 45 percent who blamed his administration in a poll carried out less than a week after the attacks.
Still, most Americans appear to be fatalistic, with more than half -- 57 percent -- saying they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."
The poll was carried out August 30 through September 2 by Opinion Research Corp. with 1,004 American adults questioned by telephone. The sampling error for the questions was 3 percentage points.



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

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and ?Consciously Failed? To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York?s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.
The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.
The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).
Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).
W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org, the group that commissioned the poll, expressed genuine surprise that New Yorkers' belief in the administration's complicity is as high or higher than that seen overseas. "We're familiar with high levels of 9/11 skepticism abroad where there has been open debate of the evidence for US government complicity. On May 26th the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act. There was no US coverage of this startling poll or the facts supporting the Canadians' conclusions, and there has been virtually no debate on the victim families' scores of still unanswered questions. I think these numbers show that most New Yorkers are now fed up with the silence, and that politicians trying to exploit 9/11 do so at their peril. The 9/11 case is not closed and New York's questions are not going away."
Nicholas Levis of NY911truth.org, an advisor on the poll, agrees, "The 9/11 Commission gave us a plenty of 'recommendations', but far more plentiful were the discrepancies, gaps and omissions in their supposedly 'final' report. How can proposals based on such deficient findings ever make us safe? We think these poll numbers are basically saying, 'Wait just a minute. What about the scores of still outstanding questions? What about the unexplained collapses of WTC 7, our air defenses, official accountability, the chain of command on 9/11, the anthrax, insider trading & FBI field probes? There's so much more to this story that we need to know about.' When such a huge majority of New Yorkers want a new investigation, it will be interesting to see how quickly Attorney General Spitzer and our legislators respond."
SCOPE: The poll covered five areas of related interest: 1) Iraq - do New Yorkers think that our leaders "deliberately misled" us before the war (51.2% do); 2) the 9/11 Commission - did it answer all the "important questions" (only 36% said yes); 3) the inexplicable and largely unreported collapse of the third WTC skyscraper on 9/11 - what was its number (28% of NYC area residents knew); 4) the question on complicity; and 5) how many wanted a new 9/11 probe. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.
SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11Commission which they fought to create. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as a "road map" for their inquiry, these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability. Specifically, they raised the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). But the Commission ignored the majority of these questions, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive issues remain unaddressed to this day. The Zogby International poll was also cosponsored by Walden Three (walden3.org) and 9/11 Citizens Watch (911citizenswatch.org), a watchdog group which has monitored the Commission since its inception and will release its findings, "The 9/11 Omission Report," in several weeks.
On September 9th and 11th, 911Truth.org will cosponsor two large successive inquiries in New York, a preliminary 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing and "Confronting the Evidence: 9/11 and the Search for Truth," a research-focused evidentiary forum. These inquiries will examine many of the 9/11 Commission-shunned questions and discuss preparation of a probable cause complaint demanding a grand jury and criminal investigation from the New York Attorney General. Possible charges range from criminal negligence and gross dereliction of duty to foreknowledge, complicity and subsequent obstruction of justice. For details and developments, see www.911truth.org. For press info, contact Kyle Hence 212-243-7787 kylehence@earthlink.net
Zogby International conducted interviews of 808 adults chosen at random in New York State. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from 8/24/04 through 8/26/04. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

 

[Mr. Mel]

84% reject official story

84% reject official story

http://www.disgrunt.com/blog/2006/10/14/scientific-poll-84-reject-official-911-story/

 

[Mr. Mel]

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job

Man who set up Operation Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, December 4, 2007


Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga was elected President of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.
Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.
Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
(Article continues below)


Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they coined "false flag operations," terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

Cossiga's revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRISON PLANET.TV CHRISTMAS SPECIAL - IT'S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cossiga's new revelations appeared last week in Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.

"[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley's book as stating that "The mastermind of the attack must have been a ?sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.?
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

 

[Mr. Mel]

40% of Americans can't spot the US on a fking globe, so why am I not surprised the gov't story was swallowed...

http://www.sprword.com/videos/ringofpower/

 

[Mr. Mel]

Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed. Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims ofThe 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers ? including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC ? are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta ? such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances ? that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed ? an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" ? a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel ? that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel ? made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's fa?ade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner ? even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras ? including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike ? could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the U.S. military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family ? all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period ? were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for U.S. airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds ? testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other U.S. officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the U.S. military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the U.S. Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks ? Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart ? were also three of the strongest advocates for the U.S. Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, U.S. representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a U.S. proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the U.S. public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command ? even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the U.S. military's radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the U.S. military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three (3) years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department" ? although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference ? although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36 ? in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon ? one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the U.S. military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim ? made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them ? that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. WHY would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception IF they were NOT trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)

 

[Mr. Mel]

Call me in a year when you have caught up

Call me in a year when you have caught up

Top-secret notes confirm congressional, 9-11 Commission & Pentagon cover up of Iraq war plans on day of Sept. 11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Washington, DC?February 27, 2006?TomFlocco.com?Pentagon notes written by Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone during a meeting with Department of Defense (DoD) Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at 2:40 pm on the day of the September 11 attacks provide important evidence and historical insight into the inner circle of key players involved in the defense of the United States immediately following the worst attack on American soil in U.S. history.

Cambone?s explosive written observations provide proof that a commitment to place Baghdad on the front burner was foremost on the minds of Bush administration officials almost simultaneously as the alleged ?hijackers? attacked, revealing Rumsfeld?s full fixation on finding a justification ?related? to "or not? related to Iraq as 9-11 perpetrator.

The Bush administration wanted to create a ?boogie-man? in Saddam Hussein as partly responsible for September 11?no matter what, all according to top-secret internal memos from key aide Cambone; however, both have not publicly explained before career prosecutors why Iraq had to become a perpetrator despite now-proven phony and non-existent evidence.

An explosive CBS News report on September 4, 2002 fully exposed the existence of Cambone?s September 11 notes and explained their contents?including the ?go massive? and ?things related and not? references to war against Iraq.

Congress and the 9-11 Commission obstructed justice by failing to publicly report the stunning revelations which represent meritorious evidence requiring grand jury testimony.

Cambone?s notes became available as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to DoD by citizen researcher Thad Anderson who filed the FOIA on July 23, 2005 and received a heavily redacted response from the Bush administration about two weeks ago on February 10, 2006.

TomFlocco.com was provided with the documents after Anderson?s FOIA response was published in a recent U.S. intelligence field report from the Special Operations Group (SOG) which passed them to us via intelligence authority Thomas Heneghan.

The notes are also available at federal whistleblower Stew Webb?s site, StewWebb.com, and Lenny Bloom?s CloakandDagger.de.

Top-secret notes provide evidence

Members of the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee would have seen the documents; and 9-11 Commission members and Washington Post editor and author Bob Woodward also knew of their existence since both the final 9-11 Commission Report and Woodward?s book ?Plan of Attack? (based on exclusive interviews with President Bush) made multiple references to Cambone?s notes with no mention of the ?go massive? revelations.

In the 9-11 Commission Report reference was also made to notes made by Rumsfeld?s DoD spokesperson Victoria Clarke; however, Congress and the Commission have also covered up the contents of Clarke?s potentially explosive contemporaneous written observations in her meetings with Rumsfeld after the attacks.

The top-secret Clarke and Cambone notes provide strong indications that their explosive contents caused Bush and Cheney to require the 9-11 Commission to afford them an unprecedented joint interview in order not to provide testimony which would implicate each other.

TomFlocco.com has been told that there is a raging FOIA fight regarding the future public release of the top-secret Victoria Clarke notes written during and after the 9-11 attacks.

The crucial contents of the Clarke and Cambone notes were either watered down or deleted, providing more damage control to prevent public outcries for Cambone, Rumsfeld and Clarke to face serious grand jury interrogation.

Click here to examine copies of the original Stephen A. Cambone contemporaneous notes made during and immediately after the 9-11 attacks:

?12:05 [pm]?DCT [Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet] returned call?UBL [Osama bin Laden intercept known operative??Heard good news??3rd [unclear] to come?

[side section partially redacted]?

?Intercept: Vague?might/not mean something?no good basis for hanging hat.?

?2:40 [pm]?Resume Statement?Best info fast?judge whether good enough?Hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time?Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]??

?Tasks [Pentagon attorney] Jim Haynes to talk w/ PW [former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz] for additional support v/v [visavis?with relation to] Usis [Uday Hussein?Saddam?s son] & connection w/ UBL??

?NR [ REDACTED?Bush administration determination that this blacked out section is ?not related or not relevant? for public view. ]?

??Hard to get a good case?Need to move swiftly?Near term target needs?go massive?sweep it all up?things related & not?[Arrow] Need to do so to get anything useful?

?VP [Reference to Vice President Cheney] Report:

1) CIA Intercept 9:53 EST?NR [ REDACTED?Bush administration determination that this blacked out section is ?not related or not relevant? for public view. ? ]

2) AA77 [American Airlines Flight 77]?three indiv [individuals] have been followed since Millennium [bombing attempt] and [USS] Cole [bombing]?1 guy is associate of Cole bomber?2 entered the U.S. in early July?(2d of 3 pulled aside and interrogated?)

3) No M.O. [modus operandi?mode of operating or working ] ?

NR [ REDACTED?Bush administration determination that this blacked out section is ?not related or not relevant? for public view. ]

Implications for grand jury testimony

Despite their collective awareness of the revelations contained in the notes, there was no mention of the key ?go massive?sweep it all up?things related and not? references found in Cambone?s written observations?only in the September 4, 2002 CBS report?the references to which were allegedly obstructed by Congress, the 9-11 Commission and Bob Woodward?s book.

The notes also reveal that Vice President Cheney was aware of their existence, providing evidence for additional grand jury testimony regarding personal meetings, notes and/or electronic and telephone communications.

That Pentagon attorney Jim Haynes and DoD Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz were also mentioned in the notes should of necessity require the two to join Vice President Cheney and others previously mentioned for subpoenaed testimony.

The testimony of Intelligence Committee Senate and House legislators, 9-11 Commission members and Woodward would also be required to ascertain whether the legal process was obstructed, preventing a determination as to whether evidence of a government war agenda and prior knowledge of the attacks exists, and whether the lives of 3,000 U.S. citizens and those of other countries should have been saved.

A new congressional probe would be problematic, however, requiring legislators who failed in their oversight over U.S.national security to investigate themselves regarding the explosive contents of the Cambone and potentially the Clarke notes, absent a special prosecutor.

Another Cambone observation written at 12:05 pm (just two hours after the attacks) said ?DCI [ former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet] returned a call?UBL [Usama bin Laden] intercept known operative?heard good news?UBL intercepted known operation?3rd attack(?) to come?? which curiously refers to ?good news? after the attacks. We have previously reported that Tenet turned state?s evidence against the Bush administration.

The key players have not been required to publicly explain what the ?good news? was after the attacks and who Tenet talked to regarding the ?UBL intercept known operative? and what implications they have for 9-11 evidence since the Congressional Intelligence Committee, the Commission and Woodward covered up this information while having access to the contents of the notes.

Tom Heneghan advised us that Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Porter Goss is restricting the release of former DCI George Tenet?s contemporaneous notes regarding the 9-11 attacks and the buildup to the Iraq war in what Heneghan termed as a ?criminalization of the U.S. national security document classification process,? providing clear evidence that Goss should be subpoenaed to explain his actions.

Congress has also permitted the obstruction of Tenet?s 9-11/Iraq war notes in the interests of ?national security.?

Part of another redacted page [VP Report involving Vice President Cheney] referred to American Airlines Flight 77 which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, noting ?AA 77?3 individuals have been followed since the Millennium [bomber] and the [USS] Cole?1 guy is [an] associate of Cole bomber?2 entered U.S. in early July [prior to the attacks]?2 of 3 pulled aside, interrogated??

The references to American 77 acknowledge that federal authorities knew about and were following three Muslims who were allegedly on board the Pentagon plane, raising questions as to why the FBI did not stop the three alleged ?hijackers? since they were under constant surveillance after having entered the United States in July prior to the attacks.

This, raising clear grand jury questions as to whether United States government operatives purposefully allowed the September 11 attacks to occur in order to help further the war agenda which has benefited government contractors and provided a means to eliminate Uday Hussein.

According to Heneghan, ?Uday was a major witness regarding the events of 9-11, having been killed on the very day that the Valerie Plame leak-gate scandal involving currently indicted Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby began to unfold in the American media.

Cambone and Rumsfeld acknowledge Uday on day of 9-11 attacks

Another explosive document which has already been widely publicized adds validity to the fact that Uday Hussein [Saddam?s younger son] needed to be quickly eliminated near the outset of a war with Iraq because he was aware of a letter which indicated prior knowledge of the 9-11 attacks.

Despite the fact that Delmart "Mike" Vreeland?the intelligence operative tasked to deliver the letter from Uday Hussein to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin?has a controversial past at best, the inclusion of Uday in Cambone?s notes provides additional important evidence.

Cambone writes that Rumsfeld wanted Wolfowitz to provide ?additional support? to find a way to commence war against Iraq, as Uday?s letter provides stunning if not smoking gun revelations. [Click here to examine the original Uday Hussein letter written to Vladimir Putin]

Of special significance is the mention of ?money provided by the Americans,? also revealing the existence of a suitable ?deal guaranteed by our American official.?

Given the mention in the top-secret notes of Uday by Cambone and Rumsfeld?and possibly Victoria Clarke in her notes?strong reasons exist for immediate subpoenas by U.S. Department of Justice career prosecutors who have no political allegiance to the Bush administration.

According to Heneghan, U.S. intelligence sources said Tenet received a cell phone call from Afghanistan or the Soviet Republic of Georgia, relating that the person to whom the CIA Director was returning the call was either Gary Best, rogue intelligence operative, or Soviet Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

It is likely that this information can be verified by the Department of Justice (DoJ) since we have already learned via intelligence sources that Tenet has testified against President Bush and Vice President Cheney in order to receive transactional immunity from prosecution.

Uday?s letter to Putin, dated June 3, 2000, also indicates that ?the initial strike or attack will be started at the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001 by our brothers in the faith.?

The letter was found by Vreeland in a diplomatic bag which he opened while in Moscow performing other government operations.

Canadian authorities were reportedly informed about the letter in August, 2001, providing additional evidence which links the now deceased Uday Hussein back to the Cambone-Rumsfeld notes as a key player in the 9-11 attacks and the all-out attempt to create an Iraq war scenario believable enough to convince Americans to be willing to send their sons and daughters to Baghdad to die in a conflict based upon lies.

Once the notes become widely available, public pressure could force federal prosecutors to re-open an investigation into the September 11 attacks in a manner similar to the current outrage over foreign control of U.S. ports which has forced Republicans and Democrats to call for a public probe of the secret committee which permitted commerce to trump national security due to the failure of congressional oversight.




NEWS OF DELAWARE COUNTY MID DELCO EDITION Volume 71 Number 15
MAILBAG:
A plea to Congressman Curt Weldon
By: Tom Flocco
3.15.06
http://tomflocco.com/Docs/fw/DelCountNews.htm

 

[Mr. Mel]

NEW YORKERS CONFRONT PHONY 911 "COVERUP" COMMISSION
9-11 COMMISSION IS A TOTAL FRAUD
voxfux

Angry New Yorkers confront the team of cowards and liars called the 9-11 commission.
The Illuminati controlled "coverup," commission met fierce resistance from New Yorkers.
Leading the pack was Christopher Brodeur who railed against Giuliani and loosened the crowd up, "?Three thousand people are dead! They were not killed because he's a great leader. ... Let's ask some real questions!" Then it was a barrage of angry outbursts from family members and angry citizens at both the commission and at Giuliani. One Held a sign saying, "FICTION," echoing Michael Moore's anti Bush, Oscar night slogan.
But some shouted about the minutiae of things at a time when all attacks need to be directed towards the slimeball in the White House. There was a woman shouting about police radios, shouting, "Lets talk about the radios!" - an issue, not likely to ignite the passions of the masses.
The crowd mostly diverted us from the real questions which should be to seek to uncover the details about how the Industrialists planned and executed the attacks on 9-11. It was a golden opportunity to go after the jugular of the puppet in the White House and fan the flames of the, "Burning Bush," by asking why the commission didn't ask Bush any questions about Bushes thirty year relationship with the Saudies and in particular the Bin Ladin Family.
No doubt the Bush crime cartel is in meltdown at the moment - A perfect time to increase the temperature. Increase the attacks. Everyone is jumping ship on the Bushes. It looks like every flank of the big lie is falling apart right before our eyes. That Australian scumbag Prime Minister John Howard is going to be thrown out on the balls of his ass for licking Bushes ass. Tony Blair is in Trouble.


And best of all, the ranks of the United States military are bristling with contempt and distain for Bush, Rumsfeld and their Zionist patsy Wolfowitz.
All Bush has going for him is the electronic voting machines, and the possibility of a strategic pre-election sneak attack - An "Inside" terrorist attack. That's it!
You can forget about the Coverup Commission. Go to the only source of facts and trustworthy analysis about 9-11 - The Alternate News Sources on the Internet - The last hope for truth. They are the last hope in America for reliable and accurate and honest news of our world. All other mediums are suspect.
Bush is bloodied at the moment from all the filth which surfaced and which is leading right up that ladder to Oval Office. Let's continue to act as transmission mediums for the truth. Hammer away every way possible at them. Unyielding pressure on all the tentacles of the systematic lie. Cut the head off the octopus by retransmitting the truth about it's poisonous nature. And suffocate it's tentacles by shifting your attentions and economies away from their media and their material. The world is waking up.

 

[Mr. Mel]

l to say it didn't happen or that the US did it is a disgrace to everyone who died.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360

 

[UGA12]

Look even Ray Charles could see that GW used 9-11 to his benifit when it comes to his agenda (that thing all presidents have). That however is not the topic. Nor are these polls you are showing me because there is a big difference in participating in the attack on the nation or not having enough forsight to stop it. I totally agree that our administrations did not do enough to protect us, but there is a big difference in incompotent and actively participating in the attack. I would love to continue with you agent but if you cant just lay out what you feel happened then it is no different then the other thread.
Good Night

 

[Mr. Mel]

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 93938 responses

Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day. 67%

No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11. 27%

I'm not sure. 5.4%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/

Whole lot of tin foil hatters out there!!!!!:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

 

[Mr. Mel]

Look even Ray Charles could see that GW used 9-11 to his benifit when it comes to his agenda (that thing all presidents have). That however is not the topic. Nor are these polls you are showing me because there is a big difference in participating in the attack on the nation or not having enough forsite to stop it. I totally agree that our administrations did not do enough to protect us, but there is a big difference in incompotent and actively participating in the attack. I would love to continue with you agent but if you cant just lay out what you feel happened then it is no different then the other thread.
Good Night

What fking difference does it make what I THINK happened? The fact is the "Story" doesn't add up to what the Gov't says it does. NOT EVEN FKING CLOSE!

Let's say I'm somewhere between at best the Gov't knowing about the planned attacks and doing small things to help it along and NOT stop it, plus help cover it up and at worst orchestrating it all themselves to scare us to death and drag us to war along with spy on us every second.

There, you happy? Now, try answering the 100's of questions I have posed. Pick one, ANY one. Open your brain, watch a video and see what you think.

UGA, how do you feel about pristine passports falling out of fireballs and DNA evidence taken from evaporating planes? UGA how do you feel about cell phones at 30,000 feet and 500mph? UGA, do you think those towers fell in under 2 hours from jet fuel?

 

[marine]

for being so 'open minded' and 'on the fence' about this topic... you sure do appear to be very supportative and vocal about one side rather than the other.

Don't be so ashamed to just come right out and say that you think the government was in on it. It will make you look like less of an @ss.

Its pathetic and unsettling the way you bring your points out while trying to act like some glorious nuetral party.

Give it a rest agent.

 

[Cie]

Agent--

Below is a link to a video of the pentagon crash. I'm certain you have viewed if you are half as fanatical about this "conspiracy" as it would appear. A low flying object enters the right side of the picture in one frame and explodes into the pentagon in the next.

The release of this footage was apparently delayed until the completion of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, which ended on May 3, 2006.

MPEG of Pentagon security footage:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-2.mpg


I regretfully admit that I am curious as to WHY our national defense system was unable to identify the threat and shoot down this plane prior to it crashing into the pentagon, but to say that a plane didn't strike the pentagon makes little sense based on the above footage.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

for your health

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

 

[Cie]

I have always felt that politicians lie for personal gain. These are lies told by individuals seeking individual gain.

It has also been my belief that government occasionally should lie in the best interest of the masses. For example, UFOs may exist, but I couldn't blame world leaders from keeping something like this under wraps in order to keep the peace. Still, there are other times when government lies to cover up their own mistakes.

If there are inconsistencies in the 9/11 commision report, then they are likely the result of the government covering their asses for a littany of missteps in homeland security and counterterrorism that led to this tragedy.

 

[Mr. Mel]

for being so 'open minded' and 'on the fence' about this topic... you sure do appear to be very supportative and vocal about one side rather than the other.

Don't be so ashamed to just come right out and say that you think the government was in on it. It will make you look like less of an @ss.

Its pathetic and unsettling the way you bring your points out while trying to act like some glorious nuetral party.

Give it a rest agent.

The fuk I said I was on the fence? My only question is HOW MUCH they were involved, not if.

Can't stay away and can't contribute eh Marine? What a conundrum....

I'm not really supporting one side or the other, just trying to point out all the FILTHY ****ING LIES OUR GOV'T SPEWS...

 

[Mr. Mel]

for your health

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Can't keep away, eh? Can't answer questions and can't stay away....hmmmmmmmm, you remind me of somebody!:00x33

Here's one for your consideration...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedantic

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

omg #...
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).


I particularly like this one.

Want me to pull out some more stupid ones? (please--go ahead--:weed: )

a mind is a terrible thing to waste

:0corn