E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Shaun Heasley / Getty Images file
Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, left, greets former Sen. Bob Graham in a Dec. 17, 2004 file photo. Graham, who co-chaired the joint congressional investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, says the FBI did not inform his panel or a separate investigation co-chaired by Keane, about suspicious contacts between Saudi citizens living in Florida and some of the 9/11 hijackers.
Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired Congress’ Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has seen two classified FBI documents that he says are at odds with the bureau’s public statements that there was no connection between the hijackers and Saudis then living in Sarasota, Fla.
“There are significant inconsistencies between the public statements of the FBI in September and what I read in the classified documents,” Graham said.
“One document adds to the evidence that the investigation was not the robust inquiry claimed by the FBI,” Graham said. “An important investigative lead was not pursued and unsubstantiated statements were accepted as truth.”
Whether the 9/11 hijackers acted alone, or whether they had support within the U.S., remains an unanswered question -- one that began to be asked as soon as it became known that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. It was underlined when Congress’s bipartisan inquiry released its public report in July 2003. The final 28 pages, regarding possible foreign support for the terrorists, were censored in their entirety -- on President George W. Bush’s instructions.
More than a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, former Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska have filed affidavits in a lawsuit filed by victims' family members saying they believe the Saudi government may have played a role in the plot.
Graham said the two classified FBI documents that he saw, dated 2002 and 2003, were prepared by an agent who participated in the Sarasota investigation. He said the agent suggested that another federal agency be asked to join the investigation, but that the idea was “rejected.”
Graham attempted in recent weeks to contact the agent, he said, only to find the man had been instructed by FBI headquarters not to talk.
FBI: 'No credible evidence'
The FBI-led investigation a decade ago focused on Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his wife, Anoud, who moved out of their home in the upscale, gated community of Prestancia, near Sarasota, and left the country in the weeks before 9/11. The couple left behind three cars and numerous personal belongings, such as furnishings, clothes, medicine and food, according to law enforcement records. After the 9/11 attacks, a concerned neighbor contacted the FBI.
Broward Bulldog
Abdulazziz al-Hijji in a photo taken when he lived in Sarasota, Fla.
Analysis of Prestancia gatehouse visitor logs and photographs of license tags showed that vehicles driven by several of the future hijackers had visited the al-Hijji home at 4224 Escondito Circle, according to a counterterrorism officer and former Prestancia administrator Larry Berberich. If that did occur, it will feed into suspicions that the hijackers had Saudi support -- a suspicion held by some official investigators but played down by the 9/11 Commission.
Al-Hijji, who now lives and works in London, recently called 9/11 “a crime against the USA and all humankind” and said he was “saddened and oppressed by these false allegations.” He also said it was “not true” that Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers visited him at his Sarasota home.
The FBI has backed up al-Hijji. After initially declining to comment, the bureau confirmed that it did investigate but said it found nothing sinister. Agents, however, have refused to answer reporters’ specific questions about its investigation or its findings about the Prestancia gate records.
The FBI reiterated its position in a Feb. 7 letter that denied a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records from its Sarasota probe. The denial said their release “could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
“At no time during the course of its investigation of the attacks, known as the PENTTBOM investigation, did the FBI develop credible evidence that connected the address at 4224 Escondito Circle, Sarasota, Florida, to any of the 9/11 hijackers,” wrote records section chief David M. Hardy.
Hillsborough County Jail
Booking photo of Wissam Hammoud.
Newly released Florida Department of Law Enforcement documents, however, state that an informant told the FBI in 2004 that al-Hijji had considered Osama bin Laden a “hero” and may have known some of the hijackers. The informant, Wissam Hammoud, also said al-Hijji once introduced him to Adnan El Shukrijumah, an ex-Broward County resident and suspected al-Qaida operative on the FBI’s Most Wanted list.
Last September, FBI spokesmen also disputed Graham’s assertion that Congress was never told about the Sarasota investigation.
That prompted Graham to ask the FBI for assistance in locating in the National Archives the Sarasota-related files that were allegedly turned over to Congress. Instead, after what Graham said were two months in which the FBI was “either unwilling or unable” to help find the records, the bureau suddenly turned over two documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which Graham once headed and where he still has access. It is those documents that Graham has said are inconsistent with the FBI denials.
Meeting abruptly canceled
Graham shared this development with the Obama White House, which responded by setting up a meeting between Graham and FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce. According to the former senator, Joyce told Graham he “didn’t want to talk” about the Sarasota episode. Graham said he was assured, however, that he would shortly be shown material that supported the FBI’s denials, and a further meeting was arranged with an FBI aide.
In December, Graham said, the scheduled meeting was abruptly canceled and he was told he would be allowed no further access to FBI information about Sarasota.
Graham believes the joint congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks was not the only national investigative body kept in the dark about Sarasota. He said the co-chairs of the later 9/11 Commission, Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, have told him they also were unaware of it.
Kean, a former New Jersey governor, told Graham the commission would have “worked it hard,” because the hypothesis that the hijackers completed the planning alone was “implausible,” the former senator said.
Kean did not return several phone messages seeking comment. But Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman, confirmed this month that he learned nothing about the Sarasota matter while serving as vice-chair of the 9/11 commission.
Graham sees the information now emerging about Sarasota as ominously similar to discoveries his inquiry made in California. Leads there indicated that the first two hijackers to reach the U.S., Saudis Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, received help first from a diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles and then from two other Saudis, one of whom helped al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi find a place to live. Multiple sources told investigators they believed both the latter Saudis had been Saudi government agents.
Later, when 9/11 Commission staff gained limited access to these individuals in Saudi Arabia, the aides’ reaction was caustic. One memo described the testimony of one of them as “deceptive ... inconsistent ... implausible.” The testimony of another displayed an “utter lack of credibility,” it said.
Graham is troubled by what he sees as FBI headquarters’ apparent effort to conceal information, including the fact that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi lived for months in California in the home of a paid FBI informant. Even when that emerged, the FBI denied his inquiry access to the informant. Graham wonders if that was merely because of the bureau’s embarrassment, or because the informant knew something that “would be even more damaging were it revealed.”
The newly surfaced FDLE documents containing informant Hammoud’s troubling 2004 information about al-Hijji have reinforced Graham’s concerns because they conflict with the FBI’s public statements.
Hammoud’s statement that al-Hijji introduced him to Saudi terror suspect Shukrijumah is consistent with the report that Prestancia gate logs showed Shukrijumah had visited the al-Hijji house – and buttresses longstanding official suspicion that he was linked to the hijackers. When Mohamed Atta visited a federal immigration office in Miami to discuss a visa problem in May 2001, a 9/11 Commission footnote reports, a man who closely resembled Shukrijumah accompanied him.
Graham sees what he believes to be the suppression of evidence pointing to Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers as arising from the perceived advantages to the West, at the time and now, of keeping Saudi Arabia happy.
In late December, the U.S. announced a new $30 billion defense deal with the Saudis.
“This agreement serves to reinforce the strong enduring relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro. “It demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a strong Saudi defense capability as a key component to regional security.”
Graham said he was taken aback by that announcement.
“I think that in the period immediately after 9/11 the FBI was under instructions from the Bush White House not to discuss anything that could be embarrassing to the Saudis,” he said. “It is more inexplicable why the Obama administration has been reticent to pursue the question of Saudi involvement. For both administrations, there was and continues to be an obligation to inform the American people through truthful information.”
Anthony Summers is co-author, with Robbyn Swan, of “The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 & Osama bin Laden.” Dan Christensen edits the Miami-area investigative Website Broward Bulldog, in which this article first appeared.
Leave a Comment:
If 15 out of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia how did we end up in Iraq and Afghanistan?
A lot of people have been asking that question since 2002. Afghanistan was a clear target as that was the location at the time of OBL as well as the site of terrorist camps and planning. Our continued presence there 10 years later, however, makes no sense. The only explanation is that we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan to pursue the war in Iraq. Iraq never made sense.
Unfortunately, it appears that the solution is for the US and NATO to abandon Afghanistan and isolate it. Conditions in the country will be horrible for years to come, but just as has occurred with China, and now Myanmar and, we hope soon, N. Korea, they may eventually choose to rejoin the rest of the world.
I'm not one for consipiracy theories, but something really is rotten here.
Easy.
"Ties to al-qaeda" "Imminent threat" "Reconstituted nuclear weapons" "Smoking gun...mushroom cloud"
Remember those ones???
If ever there was dumb question, schmitterling, you've certainly asked it.
100% of the bombers of the Oklahoma City Court House were U.S. Citizens, yet some how we failed to invade ourselves. In both cases, we pursued the people responsible, and after 9/11/2001, those people were either dead, or hiding in Afghanistan.
If there is some unexplored, or intentionally hidden connection to high-level Saudis and the 9/11 attacks, I certainly wish to know of it. But on Sept. 11, and in the months and years following, the trail certainly led to Afghanistan, to the Al Qaeda organization which had its base of operations there, and to the Taliban government which was giving them a safe refuge.
Anita, I would largely agree with your statements, after 2002, we took our eye off the ball, either through gross stupidity or gross cupidity on the part of our leadership. Now, 10 years later, it may be that we have accomplished all that is possible in the here and now. There is a semi-stable, and officially friendly government in place, Osama bin Laden is [very happily] dead, and Al Qaeda, while still existent, has lost the centralized organization it possessed in 2002. Most importantly, the feelings of the Afghan people appear to be souring against our continued presence.
It is time to go.
But I don't see any connection between this news story and the current state of Afghanistan. If there is a conspiracy afoot, its subtlety is amazing, and it has spanned two Presidential Administrations, and over a decade.
Anita- "Iraq never made sense"? Really? (dman- you should know better)
You have a dictator who slaughters his own people, kidnaps little girls off the street to rape, runs the guys through industrial meat grinders, attacks his arab neighbors to take over their oil fields because he thinks they are his property, creates WMDs (YES, gas weapons are WMDs, look it up) , was going after atomic bombs at one point, had the 5th largest army in the world, and you think it's a good idea to let him run around the Middle East?
Let me guess --you are a Sunni? Explain the above, and try to make sense.
Ritdog - Yes, Saddam was a miserable b*stard, and hardly a great benefit to his own people. But it is not our national duty to rid the world of every tyrant, and certainly not when we had more pressing issues to deal with, both at home and in Afghanistan.
As to the rest of your post, it is you, ritdog, who should know better.
Saddam was uninvolved in the terrorist attacks against our country, and Al Qaeda was never active in Iraq until after our invasion. So one must ask why we turned the main force of our military away from Afghanistan to this uninvolved, but oil-rich nation.
Saddam's WMD programs had been disabled many years before the invasion. Although 1998 intelligence suggested he was still engaged in pursuit of such weapons, in 2002 and 2003, the U.N. investigators were finding no trace of either such a program, or of the illicit weapons it might have produced, and, as you should know, in the 9 years since our invasion, we have found precisely nothing, as in nada, as in zip, and as in doodley squat.
His nuclear weapons program was completely disabled. The only remnant found to date, was a long neglected store of yellow-cake, which is partially refined uranium ore. Such material is no more directly usable in producing a nuclear bomb than crude oil is to power your car.
His army may have been large in numbers, but its effectiveness was demonstrated in the 1991 war. We all remember what happened then. Don't we?
Let me guess, you are being intentionally obtuse? Or does it come naturally to you?
schmitterling,
Easy answer: Iraq had Saddam, Afghanistan has the Taliban, Saudi Arabia has oil.
Denver, I love your analogy, but, doesn't it make more sense to occupy Saudia Arabia for the oil? Not to mention terrorists...
For the same reason that it was Japan attacked us at Peal harbor yet the US made defeating Germany the priority. To taken care of the bigger threat to long term US security and long term stability in the region. Also it had already been US policy to promte democracy in Iraq. Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. The attacks on us simply made it possible to use force to achieve this.
Because EVERY modern US President has been receiving massive amounts of money from the Saudi's in one form or another for decades. Cash, Gifts, Donations to their "causes" like the Carter Center, Clinton Library, etc. Carter, Clinton, Bush I and II and Obama. It has been extensively documented by insiders for years, but never gets to the front page for obvious reasons. To conquer from within, is a lot easier than from without.
when known suspected terrorist where in the united states training to fly... condi rice had no idea they were in our country...and george w. bush wouldn't lie to you...LOL...
"Ringo15" --
So you admit that the Bush criminal enterprise lied to the American people in order to illegally invade and occupy the non-threatening sovereign nation of Iraq.
And how does that make the fake case for invading Iraq as substitute for capturing bin Laden, who was NOT in Iraq?
It makes the treasonous case -- for you -- because you put party before country; you are the flag-waving opposite of a patriot. You'll sell out your country, directly undermining its ideals and rule of law, in order to chase after an irrelevance based upon ignorant, racist hogwash.
Hussein was such an evil dictator that Reagan made him an ally against Iran. So evil in his torturing of his own people that the Bush criminal enterprise lowered our country to his moral level.
So you approve the decimation of your own country's moral standing based upon what? Based upon a moral claim that is through and through a lie, and based upon thouroughly transparent and refuted lies.
Your's is the attitude of the typical dictator (Hitler comes to mind): we needn't do right because we have the might to do anything we please. And right and truth be damned.
Germany and Japan during WWII have no correlation with 911, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
911 occurred because of Bush II prolonged self congratulatory celebration and not getting down to business and following up on the terrorist activities. Americans and the world thought it strange that the only people allowed to fly after the Saudi destruction were the Saudis.
We invaded Iraq not for the creation democracy but oil. The Liberation Act was referenced by Bush II to justify his invade and conquer ambition but the Liberation Act wasn't about and never mentioned invasion but "just to support a democratic movement in Iraq."
We sent troops in Afghanistan to find Osama. We didn't invade Saudi Arabia, where the money, people and support came from that created 911 because of Bush II's relationships in oil businesses with them. If any country needs democracy it is Saudi Arabia.
American 'war on terror' is a total scam. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted so far. Many well connected war profiteers made huge fortunes.
People are still looking to pin everything on Bush. Bush was authorized by Congress to do what he did in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It was voted on and approved by a Democratic Congress. If you want to hang one, hang 'em all including Hilliary who spoke in favor of the actions and voted for them.
There are plenty of good reasons for not going after this one individual - the first one that comes to mind is that he may have been helping the FBI by providing them information - see the reference in the article to the fact that at one point he was staying at the house of a known FBI informant.
Maybe we went to Afghanistan because the Saudi bin Laden was there - just a wild guess. And about Iraq, can't disagree with you on that point.
Dan H - Couldn't agree with you more. In the eyes of the left Bush is so stupid he cannot even tie his own shoe laces and yet somehow he managed to dupe the smartest, most compassionate people on the planet (The left) into following him. Both parties looked at the evidence and a majority of both parties (Not one just man) agreed to attack Iraq. Bush could not have done this without democrat support.
For those of you wondering why we invaded Iraq the answer is simple. It wasn't about WMD's or nuclear bombs or chemical/biological weapons but for one reason and one reason only, Iraq is sitting on the second largest untapped oil reserve in the world.
dman,
"His army may have been large in numbers, but its effectiveness was demonstrated in the 1991 war. We all remember what happened then. Don't we?"
Yes, and I think the effectiveness of Saddam Hussein's army was also demonstrated in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's. The Iraqis had the element of surprise on their side since they were the ones who invaded Iran to begin with, and yet the war quickly degenerated into a stalemate.
They way the top of the one tower leaned to the side when it came down would have taken the weight off of the opposite side from where it was leaning. There is no explanation for that tower to have continued to implode uniformly without pre-planted explosives. Building number 7 was not hit by a plane yes, it was damaged on one side by the collapse of the towers but there is no possible reason for it to have imploded except that explosives were pre-planted. Yes, the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia yet at least some of the money the hijackers received came from a Pakistan ISI general. George W. Bush, from a well known war profiteering family ordered a cover up ordered facts to be kept secret implies fore knowledge of the attacks. Until 9/11 is investigated by a real US Attorney General independent from war profiteering monetary system monopolizing cult this is not the United States of America, it remaind hijacked to this day. A valid republic, a nation, does not exisit without a valid Constitution. Obama is just a lap dog and he is continuing in the same direction and works for the same war profiteers, monetary and energy monopolizers as Bush. The only difference is Obama is a smoother talker.
Schmitterling- the answer to your question can be reduced to: Oil
Bush. We can now clearly see the lies.
wait a minute wasn't Bush and Chaney Business partners with the Saudi's? Seems like i remember seeing that some where?
Me thinks that Graham is trying to inflame the relationship between the US and Saudia Arabia for the purposes of increase gas speculation.
Prices are just trying to go down, and Republicans know that high gas prices will bode poorly for the President.
the congress was Republican from 94-2006. you can't be serous trying to wash this off on Hilary and / or congress. Bush was the driving force behind this and now you want to paint him as just some guy forced into it. Yes she voted in favor of it. anyone not voti9ng for it was deemed some sort of subversive and anti american.
Dan H-540362
People are still looking to pin everything on Bush. Bush was authorized by Congress to do what he did in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It was voted on and approved by a Democratic Congress. If you want to hang one, hang 'em all including Hilliary who spoke in favor of the actions and voted for them.
There are plenty of good reasons for not going after this one individual - the first one that comes to mind is that he may have been helping the FBI by providing them information - see the reference in the article to the fact that at one point he was staying at the house of a known FBI informant.
Ritdog-908299
Saddam didn't have WMD program, But he purchased chemicals from unknown country, limited amount and was used to end the war with Iran and the Kurd rebellion.. if you believe everything you hear, Saddam was the 5th largest army in that area, not the world, the largest in that area is Turkey, Israel Egypt and Iran then Iraq
Bin Laden was Saudi. He finnaced and ran the org. He wanted operatives he could trust. So the Saudi connection makes sense. Atta was Egyptian. He was fanatical, took his plan to Bin Laden and got approval. Bin Laden supported Atta by assigning the Saudi's to the crew along with a few others. Thing is, other Saudi's in the US may have known of the plot. Saudi's in Saudi Arabia knew. IF they tried to tip off the plot to us we commoners will never know. Remeber FBI field agents turned in advanced info and HQ in DC failed to understand and process the info. FBI DC worried about some bogus civil rights crap failed to analyse a computer they seized woith out a warrant. With thsi knid of pattern to their thinking, It wouldn't be a surprise if we found out a Saudi tried to warn us but they didn't take it seriously. On the other hand, if the Saudi's didn't try to warn us, we should have dealt with them accordingly. Either way, the trust of the people in their govt is seriously hurt. Then we had the WMD lies about Iraq, gross mismanagement of both wars etc, etc.
We invaded Iraq because George Bush was mad at Saddam for what he did to his father. The Bush family is known to be very competitive, and while Bush Sr had common sense and wouldn't go "all the way to Baghdad", junior wanted to prove he was better.
I sincerely believe Bush wanted Saddam's head on a plate, told Cheney, and Cheney wrapped up a package of lies to make it happen, like a good foot soldier.
All the more reason to never let family relatives be president. Would have been the same with Hillary BTW. Oh...and I'm a conservative, but the truth is the truth.
If all these information about gatehouse visitor logs and photographs of license tags showed that vehicles driven by several of the future hijackers including Mohamed Atta had visited the al-Hijji home at 4224 Escondito Circle, exists and was dismissed and is still hidden by the FBI on President George W. Bush’s instructions, then this is a slap in the face to the American people and specially to the relatives of victims of 9/11 and the subsequent American soldiers that have lost their lives in the war on terrorism.
Afghanistan: Because that's where it was determined Bin Laden was hiding, and there was a heavy Al Qaeda/Taliban presence. Our invasion there was totally justified.
Iraq: Because the Saudi royal family and the Bush family go way, way back. And the Saudis had no use for Saddam. Georgie did the old family friends a favor and enriched a few cronies as part of the deal. Of course, he also trashed the economy and completely derailed our legitimate action in Afghanistan, as well, but he wasn't concerned about all that. And since the Saudi rulers and the Bush family ARE old friends, it was just conveniently ignored that most of the terrorists were Saudis.
I don't believe the Bush administration had anything to do with orchestrating 9/11, as some conspiracy theorists would have us believe, but I have no doubt they took advantage of it as a convenient excuse to invade Iraq. To quote the X Files: "Deceive, inveigle, obfuscate."
And where did Congress get the information on which they based their decision to authorize the invasion of Iraq? Oh yeah, from the Bush administration. Hmm, think there might be a reason to pin the tail on that donkey?
Bush II lied to congress about information only he as president would have. Congress believed his lies and really didn't have any information disputing it. That isn't their job. Bush II sent thousands of Americans to their death for his greed in the oil business and to settle his dad's embarrassment. That is what rich people that never went to war and understand sacrifices do.
Many people continue to blame Bush for good reason. Although Bush's venture into Iraq was, at the time, foolishly supported by many Dems, it was based on false information from the Bush administration for which no one was ever found truly accountable. While that doesn't excuse the backers of this farce, it should be correctly attributed to the source of the lie.
The Iraqi fiasco was in all probability an oil rush. Cheney infamously is on record with his failed prediction of the Iraqi people greeting us as saviors. The entire venture was considered by the administration as a brief invasion followed by a lucrative oil field split. Reality intervened.
Afghanistan is now the new Iraqi fiasco redux. Once the Taliban had been chased out it was clearly the responsibility of the Afghans to keep it that way. But there simply is not enough Afghans to support a democracy - even a propped-up one. To simplify: That's just not how they roll. Let them live like they want and deal with threats as they develop. Unfortunately, our behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan - and the resultant popular opinion stateside that all Arabs are evil - has only added fuel (oil fuel no doubt) to the smoldering fires of religious intolerance, both worldwide and domestically. That little issue will stay with us all for a very long time.
I read you...If they are so stupid and mismanaged everything why do they still have the billions of dollars of war profiteering cash? Who is stupid? Any body who does not back an American Spring of protests that will not end until the people who are so evil, that I cannot name them or I will be censored and loose my right to write here for the 20th time, are tried and convicted in a court of law. We don't need to use military kangaroo courts, we know they are guilty, prima facie straight up bold face liars they are. Treasonous Traitors to the US Constitution, guilty of conspiracy to commit and guilty of committing terrorist acts against nation and crimes against humanity.
One Word:
"OIL"
Proof?
Wait a Minute Wasnt the DEMORATS AND THE TERRIST IN BUSINESS TOGETHER, I remember seeing that somewhere.
Just as Stupid as Kim said about bush and chaney
@ Anita, "why are we still in Afghanistan 10 years later?" The Taliban continue to be a threat to the US, (let alone people in their own country) and need to be contained. Is that reason enough to still be there?
"schmitterling
If 15 out of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia how did we end up in Iraq and Afghanistan"...this is a question you might want to ask former president Bush...also, why he did not make sure that the war he started was to be paid for rather than passed down to the next president..and the huge debt left to us allo. Of course, the republicans never do any wrong..at least...they never make any claims to anything ..except to be placing blame on others...as they have done with president Obama.
There have been many cases of totally innocent Arabs / Muslims arrested just on the basis of being Arab / Muslim by the FBI. Given the level of incompetence, I don't have trouble believing that the FBI is letting guilty parties go.
George Bush said on national TV that Saddam tried tokill his daddy and he would get him for it....he won the election and delivered on his promise. That's why we were there. It was on the same broadcast where he challenged Gore to a foot race for the Presidency. Be careful who you vote for....the president can do anything he wants to do.
@ Ringo15
Study your history before making statements like this. Germany declared war on the US 3 days after the US declared war on Japan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm
The reason we went after Saddam in Iraq was because, as G W Bush said "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." In other words, G W Bush went to kill Saddam and didn't give a damn how many US soldiers were killed to appease his vengeance.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed." Paul O'Neill former Treasury Secretary under George W Bush
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-592330.html
One might point out that there are other way to get a leader out of power besides an outright invasion. Of course I wouldn't expect someone trying to justify an international crime to understand.
Jim in GA Obama had both the house and senate with DEMORAT control adn all he did was put us twice as deep in debt as all the rest of the president and congress's in HISTORY.
NOBAMA 2012 ANYONE BUT OBUMMER 2012
On the topic of this story, I wonder how many possible terrorist assistants were transported from the US immediately after 9/11 on a charter plane ordered by Bush.
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/aviation/binladin.html
Nothing like a balded face lie to put a point across.
This is the smoking gun, Folks. It's also the tip of the iceberg. Please, finally, make room for the truth to come out. Most of you will be astonished to discover that it's not at all what you think, even in the conspiracy circles.
First of all, it was a RepubliCON congress, not a Democratic one. Second, the majority of Democrats voted against the resolution. Third, the resolution authorized force to be used IF two criteria were met. That Iraq fails to cooperate with weapons inspectors and that an operational link be established between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush certified that both had been met three hours before the invasion began. Fourth, most members in Congress do not have access to classified information and therefore, had to rely on the Bush administration for information.
This guy was not the FBI informant. It was an FBI informant that said this guy thought Bin Laden was a hero.
So Graham was in the Senate all this time, in fact he was the chairman of the committee, yet only after he's out he is putting in all this effort also its 10 years later, were these fat cats sleeping this whole darn time? These SOBs have gotten too fat and lazy at our (tax payers) expense. Technically they are accountable to the citizens of USA yet it seems that they are accountable to no one ever. We need the complete truth about 9/11 now!!! its our right, stop hiding it from us, you work for us!!, we (unfortunately) put you in office. We are supposedly this great nation of democracy, justice, transparency, "for the people, by the people" yet the biggest scandals and scoundrels sneak past us right under our noses!!!
I am not a conspracy theorists. Conspiracies simply leak too much to survive very long, especially if they are large and involve many people. Human nature trumps secrecy every time.
BUT ...
GW Bush and his father directly and personally received a huge amount of financial support from Saudis. W was bailed out when he failed in business (in a failure-proof industry, duh) by Saudis. Saudis funneled considerable illegal funds to both his races for President and Texas Governor. In fact, there were solid links between the Bush family, including Jeb, with the bin Laden family itself (though not OBL himself.)
Add to that that the FBI has always been the most unreliable and politicized law enforcement agency in the USA. Hoover allowed the agency to be corrupted by his emphasis on political power and his love of "Nordic" men somehow acquired in the runup to WWII. A first hand observation is that I was a senior intelligence analyst in 1968-70 in Japan. When we were visited by ranking FBI agents for briefings (always just in time to shop for Christmas presents to be shipped illegally back home in diplomatic cans) we always had to keep out desks clear of all classified. We were told to play dumb and never answer any questions directly, but not to refer them to your superiors. Just clam up. We were told it was because the FBI regularly was caught leaking highly classified intelligence and had compromised a number of important sources in the process.
BTW, the article says that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. But if you check carefully, you will find that 18 of the 19 (or 19 of the 20 if you include the one caught) were FROM Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia uses a large number of Sunni Arabs from other countries to fill out professional positions, so if you look at the demographics, the majority of people in Saudi Arabia are not Saudi citizens. As much of the money that funded the hijackers as could be traced came via the Saudi "honey network." This is a way religious Muslims use to transfer and loan money without running afoul of Islamic law regarding interest and floating loans. It was originally practiced by honey merchants who devised ways of collecting interest and fees using the fluctuating price of honey (which has religious significance to Sunni Arabs.) This would also mean that since the honey network was used that it would have been very likely that Iran was involved.
One could easily propose that W ordered the FBI to be the sole investigative agency because he could absolutely control them. It had long been rumored that GHW Bush had a lot of specific dirt on Hoover and higher-ups at the FBI. Even at the time of 9/11 there were serious concerns that the FBI allowed the bin Laden family and other prominent Saudis to fly out of the country while all passenger air travel was shut down. There was also a huge stink at the time that these people were only allowed to be briefly interviewed in Saudi Arabia and always with Saudi intelligence people present. So at least some of Graham's story would have credibility from that aspect. This would basically then point to a possibility that GW Bush and his immediate advisors realized that the 9/11 attack was recruited, trained, funded and controlled by Saudis and that the Bush family could be linked (rightly or wrongly) to not only the Saudis but to the bin Laden family itself. Iraq would have been a perfect coverup. The US military had substantially wrecked the Iraqi military in the first Gulf War, Rumsfeld thought he knew that Sadaam had the ability to produce chemical warfare gases (because he had delivered two Bechtel-built trailers to Sadaam to make weaponized mustard and binary sarin gas), and it would be a save way to divert the public's attention from our true enemy, Saudi Arabia, by attacking Iraq. It would have had a secondary benefit of giving GW Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld something that could be used against the Saud family to keep them cooperative.
Several things are certain: Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq was known NOT to have WMD by that time, and there was absolutely no link between Sadaam and any Muslim fundamentalist organizations including al-Quaeda.
Being an old intelligence guy I can point out one interesting point that I've never seen in print. When CIA "handlers" are code-naming a source, they often do it in such a way that lets analysts know what their gut assessment of the source really is. For example, when John McCain was spilling his guts to the North Vietnamese in return for medical treatment, his code-name was "Songbird." The ONE informant on which the Iraq invasion was justified was named "Curveball."
A theory to consider: The fact was that 15 of 19 were Saudi citizens. They likely had help from other Saudi citizens (either knowingly or not) but let's take a step back for a minute.
Saudi Arabia is a kingdom and the ruling family runs the entire show. They are not popular for reasons such as greed, its relationship with the west, and its existence relative to fundamental Islam or any other you want to throw in there. Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca and other sacred sites of Islam.
So what was the true plan of 9/11? Was it to inflict damage to the USA or was that just a bonus? Was it to draw the west into an open conflict with Islam and rally the fundamentalists for war against the infidels? Or was it to trigger a war between the US and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? An overthrown Saudi kingdom by whomever could have been the goal and the control over Saudi Oil by fundamentalists would have crippled the West. On the other hand had the west occupied the oil fields would have served to further inflame tensions between the west and Islam and would rally the fundamentalist Islamists for war against the West.
If you buy these arguments then it appears the USA did not take the bait against its allies the Saudi Kingdom.
It is just a theory but it should evoke some interesting debate. Have fun.
schmitterling, #1- Afghanistan- the hunt for OBL after the 911 attacks? Iraq- The blant, flagrant and boldface lie to CONGRESS and its "MANY-MANY-WANT-TO-BELIEVE and ACCEPT-ANY-CONVENIENT-FOR-AGENDA-LIE" Members about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Back to the article, Could a "Florida" cover-up possibly be linked to something as simple but substantial as really needing "Jeb's" State, (Florida), to not be so negatively or even "again" questioningly connected in "ANY" way at all? (Almost the same as this article beginning with naming the problem in Florida but deflecting (unanswered parlaying) to end with the most and final "left with" emphasis on California, as re-invented wheel!)
What kinds of PR "REPUBLICAN GOOD GUY" spins and "deflections" were going on in Florida at the time of this apparent (10 year now) Florida connection "cover-up and deflection"? i.e. Was this around or before or after the Terry Shraivo happenings?......etc
*FACE PALM
It bothers me that people are just now scratching their head wondering WHY we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've been questioning why we are there SINCE WE INVADED.
SO HERE'S A THOUGHT:
how about we start questioning WHY ISREAL WANTS US TO INVADE IRAN WITH THEM
NOW
no need to wait 10 years, 1 trillion dollars, and another great recession to start wondering why on earth we are doing such stupid and wasteful things with OUR TAX DOLLARS.
It's somewhat amusing that so many still go over the hashed and rehashed 'wmd' bit in Iraq; they'd used them in the past, were given warning we were coming, trucks went back and forth to Syria amongst others... but does that even matter?
Most do know that reasons other than 9/11, reasons other than WMD, were the real reasons. Now, those reasons are up for speculation as we may never know; Bush family vendetta, continued chess games with Russia, oil, location, distraction, a combination.... we just may never know.
Close monetary ties with the Saudis for decades does explain some exemption, yet shouldn't. Of course the FBI and government have lied and while this story serves to stir some it shouldn't be a surprise; the real problem?
Government is and has been broken for some time, both sides of the aisle, both 'parties' have more than outlived both their usefullness and ability to function, to remain. Corruption, greed and power, selling out, lying to accomplish all, and so much else.... even if we all decided to revamp, redo, do away with what is Blue and Red and start electing real representatives and NOT combined corporate cows we'd be at least a decade away from seeing relief from what BOTH 'parties' have and continue to cause.
Unfortunately I believe we're no where near coming together and deciding to revamp and do away with the BS that is corporate government, so add another 20 years to the time frame, more wars, distractions, and bias sensationalism. Sometimes, I just don't know; it's hard to keep the faith.
And just by magic Building 7 collapses during 9/11. In the video you can see the charges going off on each floor collapsing the building.
And just a coincidence that over $100 billion in stored Chinese gold in the basement was never found. It had all been looted years before, that's why.
And the president sits calmly in a school room in Florida, not looking surprised at all. In fact he waits 8 long minutes before doing anything.
The whole truth about 9/11 is far different from what you've been led to believe.
.
Slight problem...Graham is a Democrat. (I know...he's from my state of Florida)
Shame upon Sen. Graham. He was Chairman of a Committee working with classified material and he finds it appropriate to violate the secrecy of the proceedings for some self-serving coverage in the press. Shame, I thought a Senator would have a greater feeling of responsibility than that. What he did was give impetus to more and more outlandish conspiracy theories.
What is the purpose of this ? As I see, most posters attack George Bush. Is Sen. Graham's purpose to denegrade the Bush name out of fear that Jeb wil enter the race ?
I can't think of any other purpose - unless he wants war with Saudi Arabia,which would surely be a demented suggestion. A government cannot function without its secrets and it must be able to trust those who swear an oath to uphold it.
Shame on Sen. Graham !
Hello folks, Drip! Drip! Drip!, Denial isn't just a river in Egypt is it?
It is nice to see a Sen come forward especially since he is not running for re-election
I am sure a lot of Conservatives refused to watch "Fahrenheit 9/11"
One bit of information that jumped out......when all air craft had been grounded....flights were arranged all over the country....including Florida...to fly Saudi Arabians out of the country.................BEFORE THEY COULD BE INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI.
OH.....and several had the last name of Bin Laden
Well, color me SHOCKED that Dumbya McFlightsuit was protecting the Saudi's ... I mean, he wouldn't want to piss off his family members like Bandar Bush ... another colossal blunder at the hands of the Blunderer-In-Chief, George "Dumbya" Bush ...
And the mental midgets on the Rabid & Ridiculous Right get themselves foaming at the mouth over President Obama as "weak" and "an appeaser" ... LMAO ... I love fake outrage!
Rational American - there's merritt to that theory, that we "didnt take the bait" in Saudi Arabia.
Then again, we still took the bait by not letting the great tragedy going to waste...and still helped Bin Laden achieve his stated goals "TO FINANCIALLY AND MILITARILY BANKRUPT THE US"
we are getting closer....and then there's Isreal banging on our door for an Iranian invasion...
I have to believe if we roll out of Iraq & Afghanistan, into Iran...we'll be broke in 5 years.
The middle class was decimated by offshoring our manufacturing work, funnelling the middle class wealth to the top...
and the ultra rich dont want to pay for all these wars...
so, who do you thinks going to get enslaved to pay all this war mongering off?
WE THE PEOPLE...thats who.
We went into Iraq because Saddam was a once-US-friendly-but-now-rogue dictator who had threatened the life of Bush II's father. We could also take control of the Iraq's oil. War is also good to bolster a flailing economy, which was beginning at the end of Clinton's administration. War is also good for big American companies. Richard Clarke detailed how Iraq was considered even BEFORE 9/11.
After 9/11, many including Clarke reveal the administration kept demanding that someone find a link between 9/11 and Iraq. They Bush administration was beating those war drums and fighting back against anyone in the way (like the Valerie Plame CIA outing).
When no weapons of mass destruction were found (weapons that UN inspectors and our European allies didn't believe were there in the first place), the Bush administration came up with over 20 other excuses, one as implausible as the next, as to why we invaded: Saddam was a terrible dictator; Saddam treated women badly; World is better off without Saddam; Saddam hid the weapons of mass destruction on moving trains and moved them out of the country just before the invasion; Terrorists are hiding in Iraq, blah, blah, blah.
Oh, the BS we were fed.
The biggest problem is, when the world has seen that the US, the biggest world power, has been stuck in Iraq for over 10 years, countries begin to realize that we're not so powerful at all. We've been relying on the 19th century-like big armies but our huge machine makes no sense against groups that are not similarly organized. Small, rag tag, loosely organized militias have beaten the US back in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why are both the Repubs and Democrats asking for an increase in our military budgets???
WELL DUH schmitterling! How do you think we wound up in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I'll tell you HOW! We wound up in these places through GREED, PERSONAL GAIN,ARROGANCE DECEIT,CRIMINAL MOTIVATION,and the list just goes on and on and on!
I'll say it again and I'll say it till the day I die.These wars were manufactured and so was 9/11 one of the GREATEST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY in this country of the 21st century!
Call it whatever the Hell you people want,but that's the truth. Right after 9/11, along with the 3,000 that died, and I'm saying it was a lot more than that,5 or 6 people who were witnesses and saw things different, were also, murdered for wanting to come forward and tell the REAL TRUTH!
You people are perfectly free to be as Gullible as you wish, and to believe all the Dam Lies and Deceit that you want!As time goes on more and more and things are coming out on these so called Wars that Manufactured and supposedly to protect your freedom, and the 9/11 business.
One day and I hope to God that I'm alive,that it will all come out,the murders, of 3,000 people or more,the slaughter of all the men and women sent over to Iraq and Afghanistan,and the Big business dealings between these Filthy Pieces of Sh it that PERPETRATED ALL THIS RATH,SLAUGHTER AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!
With friends like Saudi Arabia who needs enemies? Remember the adage, the enemy of our enemy is our friend. There in lies Saudi Arabia. It is no surprise they played a role in 9/11. It is no surprise the government wanted to cover that up when considering the fact that our politicians are mere puppets in the foreign interests of major corporations. Corporations who expect those interests to be protected by the politicians they seat. OBL might have been the reason we went to Afghanistan, but the untapped mineral deposits are why we are reluctant to leave. Again pandering to corporate interests.
It indeed is astonishing that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi .... yet Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed.
Duplicated somehow. Deleted.
Conspiracy theories serve well; look how much is still going on about Roswell. Our now (and for some decades now) corporate government knows they work, both distractionarily and for actual coverups for foul activity. No one knows which is true, which is coverup, what conspiracy and/or if any actually exist.
While some will talk of advance knowledge, charges going off in the towers, and other things.... yes, if scrutinized or looked at in the right or wrong way, if one really wants to find things, connections one way or the other, they'll be found. Some would believe that the more outlandish, unthinkable the act or conspiracy the more likely it's possible, as that's a good cover in and of itself.
As in my above post, we may never really know all; and, as in the beginning of this one, Roswell remains elusive. When are we being distracted, derailed? When is something turning our attention away from the illegal Fed Reserves and it's activities, governments activities or lack thereof?
There does come a time, different for all I'd suppose, that each one of us will say 'you know what? I just can't trust any of it anymore, there's no way to know what's up or down..... we need to start over'.
Even known facts serve to confuse or cause doubt amongst us and other nations; there's a time when we had OBL over for coffee and cake, per games with Russia, Iran.... trust is earned, not expected or granted.
Democratic Congress- Do you remember the wave of "patriotic" fervor that swept the country after the attack? I do. I remember the sentiment being, "If you don't stand with us, you're against America," sentiment. I remember, very well, the Republican drum beat started fast and furious. People wanted someone to pay, anyone. The White House used this moment, through public sentiment and through its damning words, to gain control through fear. Those that opposed invasion were labeled, swiftly.
When the second tower collapsed, I looked to my partner and said, "We're invading Iraq." At the time he said, "You don't know that." I shook my head and yes, I did know. This was never about 9/11. This was all about a personal and family agenda. Don't forget, the Taliban leaders had been to Crawford and welcomed as high honored guests.
I find it quite telling that certain people want to "spread the blame" and not focus on the Bush White House, but when it comes to the economy, they want to point squarely at Obama as the total bad guy. A big part of the Obama debt came in the form of the cost of the war that was not disclosed in the budget. When Obama took the White House, he put it into the debt pile, where it always belonged, and took the "hit". Also, TARP was put in place by who?
There is more here than meets the eye and one has to ask this fundamental question: What did we get out of invading both countries and how many lives have been lost compared to the number of lives lost in the attacks. There is more than meets the eye here. And FYI, I'm NOT a big Obama fan.
George W. Bush, Richard "Dick" Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell and the rest of the Bush War Crimes Syndicate are not in prison? You should be!
@out in the woods,
I was an intelligence analyst for over 10 years and worked daily with highly-compartmentalized classified material on a daily basis that whole time. The ONLY legitimate reasons for classifying anything is to 1) protect sources and 2) to keep a potential enemy from knowing exactly how successful we are or 3) to protect future plans/options. Classifying any information for purely political purposes is not only unlawful, but is blatantly anti-American. Classifying any information to keep it from the American public is not only lawful but is illegal. Using the formal security classification system to withhold information from the American public, especially information that is well known in foreign countries or insider circles, is malfeasance (technically misfeasance.) The public simply has a right to know everything that happens in government eventually, and information that does not harm the US immediately. Most intelligence people favor releasing as much classified material to the public as possible because that would actually ease the handling of classified material by reducing the volume that is classified.
Yes, Sen Graham is subject to a disclosure restriction for classified material. But that restriction becomes invalid with 1) the passage of time, 2) the disclosure of the information in open sources, 3) when the material did not pose any threat to the United States or its allies, or 4) when conscience prevails. In this case considerable time has passed, much of this was discussed generally at the time, and it is historically relevant. A key sign that this is true will be the lack of prosecution. Ellsberg in Vietnam, wikileaks in more modern times, and various "leaks" (with official blessing or otherwise) are valuable sources of information for the American public.
Hello gloria fabiaschi, you go girl! The truth is a hard pill for some to swallow. Unfortunately for those that have lived on lies, corruption and deception the facts are finally coming out. Don't worry, you will be alive to see your convictions, intuition and common sense validated and it won't be long.
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."
- Buddha quotes
Truth exists. Only lies are invented.
- Georges Braque
Why does a FORMER Senator still have access to secret documents ?
Thanks Trust Verify,you are a breath of fresh air.Thanks Again!
dirp, because he still has a clearance and is authorized to see it.
@chris749391 your posts are always extremely interesting and thought-provoking. My feeling about this whole situation is that the truth is bubbling up to the surface as it has done in so many situations in the past few years and I find it exciting. The truth will out!!!
Telling a lie is a life long burden (unless you come clean or accept that everyone takes it for granted that you lie). The government lies because government doesn't have a face - the constant rotation of government employees is one of their methods that ensures those who deal with them, never form a business/client/provider relationship.
The No Face government will grind on you forever - the system is designed to out last you - the system doesn't distinguish citizens by party membership. The government can incarcerate you - what can you do back; that either won't bankrupt you or worse?
Just tell the truth, you will save your self a lot of time and anguish.
I tend to side with the Truthers - but it's time to let it go. Getting upset requires energy I don't have....whatever the equivalent is for Young & Dumb, is for Senior Citizens, that's my new aspiration...this gaining knowledge thing is over rated...lol.
The reason that we went in to Iraq is because OBL started using it as a front for his operations. He did that for the exact reason above he wanted us to get mad at the government and try to stop the wars.
@just saying it like i see it: "Jim in GA Obama had both the house and senate with DEMORAT control adn all he did was put us twice as deep in debt as all the rest of the president and congress's in HISTORY"
You know what you just did there, pal? You told a 100% flat out lie.
Now if you didn't know what you're spreading is false, you should keep your ignorant mouth shut until you know what you're talking about. And if you did know that it's false, you are a shameful liar and you should keep your big mouth shut on general principle.
Well let's see now, the fbi was aware at time of the arrival ot the first two in california in january, 2000, clinton's shift. Why have three administrations kept quiet?
Food for your unwillingness to LEARN ANYMORE. Bush Jr got his first oil company WITH FUNDS FROM KING ABDOULLA OF SAUDI ARABIA. Bush used "borrowed money" for this purpose and was rewarded generously for doing so with continued "grooming" by the Saudis, Bush became the "new guy" in the big oil circles. Dick Cheney was busy building oil service company's that WORKED ALONG SIDE BUSH JR. They became friends very early in their "business" relationship. One helped the other out and both BECAME RICH AND POWERFUL. Then came their political rise, History is not kind to either of these ruthless manipulators and they will certainly rot in hell, but the legacy they caused will take lifetimes to solve. Our problem now is that some DO NOT BELIEVE how bad it has gotten. Corporate greed is rampant, environmental laws are being circumvented because of material cost to manufacturers (not people), financial dealings are even more corrupt. People steal more and more from our work without even lifting a finger (computer manipulation of market positions). We really are on the decline if the teabag republicrap backers prevail. VOTE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS IN ALL ELECTIONS, OUR ONLY SAFE BET ON THE FUTURE.
LOL, you think that region hates the U.S. now? Occupy Mecca & see what happens.
Real Mecca, not Santorum's idiotic reference to it the other day.
We ended up in Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to hand over Al Queda members like Bin Laden. That was justified (although it should have been officially declared in Congress and wasn't; authorization isn't legally good enough in the Constitution). But we should of been out in 2 weeks, 2 months, or at most two years. Going on 11 years is about nation building, installing a puppet regime (who fixes elections BTW; not democracy at all).
Iraq was because of LIES.
BTW, I'm a registered Republican who hates aggressive wars. Bush and Obama in my eyes are war criminals. Bush for lying and attacking Iraq, and Obama for adding 5 armed conflicts to the list of 3 we already had when Bush left (8 total we're in now if you still count Iraq, and I DO).
BTW, the three Repubs the media is pushing (Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich) are all war criminals in waiting. Who am I supoosed to vote for? No one. I'm moving out of this country. Maybe some other place won't use my tax dollars for mass murder.
ProIndividual,
"Obama for adding 5 armed conflicts to the list of 3 we already had when Bush left (8 total we're in now if you still count Iraq, and I DO)."
You must be using the New Math or something! How do you figure we are in eight wars? I only count one: Afghanistan. Where do you get the others? If you're counting Iraq and Libya, we are no longer fighting in Iraq, and we never really were fighting in Libya. But even if you counted those, that would still only be three. Where do you get 5 others?
Hello Mickey, on top of Afghanistan, we are using drones violating sovereign countries air space in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Uganda, Pakistan and god knows where else. The last time I checked, when you violate someones airspace it is an act of war!
TrustVerify,
"we are using drones violating sovereign countries air space in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Uganda, Pakistan and god knows where else."
Where do you get your information that we are using drones in those places? I know we did use drones in the Libya conflict, but that is over now. The drone in the case of Iran was a reconnaissance drone that was not meant to violate Iranian airspace. It just went off course. And I know of no drones being used in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Uganda, or Pakistan. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I certainly have not heard anything about it. How did you get that information?
Hello Mickey, just google "United States using drones in many countries" and you will see many articles on this subject.
TrustVerify,
Thanks!
Well, Ringo15, the 9/11 attacks were certainly used as an excuse to drum up support for direct intervention in Iraq, but how one justifies attacking one nation because another nation was involved in an attack upon you is a mystery to me. I've never seen any creditable claim that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, yet somehow you see this tragedy as a justification for the war. Why?
Regarding the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Supporters of the Iraq War have made much of this act as some sort of justification for our invasion in 2003. This act merely stated our nation's support dissident groups operating within Iraq, and, to very limited extent the authorization to provide actual materials and training. Nowhere does it authorize the direct use of the U.S. Military against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Here's the actual text of the aid authorization section of the bill:
Here's the link where one can read the entire bill. It specifically eschews use of the U.S. Military.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
So, there is no justification in this bill for the trillion-plus endeavor engineered by George W. Bush.
TrustVerify,
I did as you suggested on Google, and, guess what? You were right!
TrustVerify - I do not doubt that the U.S. is deploying drones in other countries, either for surveillance or to strike at unitary targets. I also agree with your assessment that violating foreign airspace, particularly with deadly intent, constitutes an act of war.
But this does not mean that a state of war exists between the U.S. and countries such as Yemen, Pakistan or the Sudan. For such to be true, an active state of hostility, either declared, or implied would have to exist between the governments of these countries and the U.S.
There is only one war being fought today. That is the war on terrorism, and I would say that, like the Cold War, before it, it is a global conflict. The United States is in a quandary regarding its methods, as there are no nation states to be overtly attacked, no centralized authority, and simply killing people randomly will not win it. But we do need to strike where obvious targets present themselves, and where the local authorities are either unable or unwilling to secure the people in question.
This does present a number of difficult legal and diplomatic questions to be answered. It also requires a fine sense of judgment on the part of the sitting President. Blundering into Iraq was rash and stupid decision on the part of the last Administration. But invading Afghanistan, and seeking to establish a stable and responsible government there: that was something we had to do.
Drone strikes in Yemen, involvement in the Libyan uprising, forays into Somalia and covert involvement in perhaps a score of other countries: some of these may be good decisions, some may be bad. But none of them are on the scale that merits their being compared with either Iraq or Afghanistan.
ProIndividual - We have not had a declared war since WWII ended in 1945. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq in 1991, Afghanistan, Iraq in 2003: all of these were fought with congressional approval of some sort, but never with a declaration of war.
So, your interpretation of the constitution appears to be at variance with the long-standing national consensus. I've read the appropriate passages in this document, and while it clearly says that the Congress shall have the power to declare, nowhere does it say that all commitments of the U.S. Military outside the borders of our country require such a declaration.
If you can find it, please point it out to me.
Hello dman, we will have to agree to disagree. I believe the war on terror isn't to spread democracy and freedom around the world it is to spread Wall Street!
Al Qaeda was created and funded by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war in the late ’70s and throughout the ’80s. The funding of these militants did not begin after the Soviet invasion, but actually several years before the invasion. US intervention in Afghanistan by training and arming Afghanistan’s Mujahidin, along with Osama Bin Laden’s Arab fighters.
US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Osama Bin Laden on many occasions then leading the CIA’s Arab legionaries in Afghanistan. Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda would later spin off into regional terrorist organizations, covertly armed, trained, and protected by the CIA to this day, including LIFG in Libya, MEK in Iraq and Iran, and Baluchi terrorists in Pakistan.
I could go on and on and if you are really interested in the truth the information is easily attainable and available on the net.
Hello Mickey, if you really want to see how and why things work google the Act of 1871, this will lead you to The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which will lead you back to the Treaty of 1873, which will lead you to the First Charter of Virginia in1606.
These are the legal treaties that govern what you believe to be the United States Of America which in fact is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. There is a reason why good ole US of A is in capital letters. Our country is a corporation, you are a corporation and that is why our Constitution is in the dust bin.
Hi, TrustVerify. My initial point had more to do with people equating our involvement in Libya, or Yemen, with our massive invasion of Iraq. There is no equating either the scale of these actions, or their justifications. Iraq, by any sane reasoning, was moronic mistake. To date, I would say that our shared intervention in Libya, and our drone strikes in Yemen, were both necessary and morally justifiable, although they do raise certain legal questions.
In rebuttal, you bring up some very interesting facts regarding Al Qaeda, its roots, and historical ties between it and the U.S, and offer this as some sort of proof that all recent anti-terrorist activity amounts to nothing but a slick financial move by the suits on Wall Street.
But, I do not believe that these facts, most of which were not totally unknown to me, really advances this basic premise.
While many people are too ready to repeat the date, "9/11", as if it were a mantra, and to use its remembrance as justification for any and all extreme actions, the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were quite real and severe, and I have no quarrel with any actions since which were truly [and wisely] aimed at preventing a second occurrence.
Afghanistan was a no brainer. If you do not use your military to seek out those individuals which are responsible for a massive attack within your borders, then you should really just disband your armed forces, bend your swords into plowshares and resign you and your family to what follows.
Iraq, as I said before, was a mistake of such massive and obvious proportions, and on so many levels, that a rational mind has difficulty believing that it was not the result of some [perhaps many] ulterior motives. If you were to claim that this war was at least partially linked to Wall St, and to the massive oil reserves possessed by Iraq, I would say that your are probably not far off.
How would I regard Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, the Philippines, all of which are sites of covert [and overt] actions by the U.S. military? I would judge these cases on their individual circumstances. But, going back to your core assertion, if is difficult for me to imagine what benefit is derived by Wall St through drone attacks in such a barren, and poor nation as Yemen.
The fact that the U.S. financed many of the Afghan [and foreign] resistance fighters against the Soviets does not, in my mind, indicate that today's conflict is primarily a Wall St-instigated power play. The 1980s constituted the final decade of the Cold War, during which we frequently supported any nation or group which was opposed to the Soviets, in almost any quarter of the world. Not all of those endeavors were wisely chosen or conducted. But many were necessary in the context of the times.
Alright, so Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Osama bin Laden. In 1945, Churchill and Truman met with Stalin too, which did not prevent the U.S. and its allies from coming into conflict with the USSR almost immediately following WWII. The fact that Truman greeted Stalin with at least official warmth in 1945, does not mean that their enmity in 1949 was feigned. That is the nature of international relationships; today's friend can become tomorrow's enemy. It happened to the U.S. and Russia following WWII. It happened to Sparta and Athens following the Persian Wars, in the 5th century BC. It also happened between the U.S. and Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.
BTW: From everything that I've read, Al Qaeda was founded in the late 1980s, not a decade earlier as you assert (Al Qaeda was created and funded by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war in the late ’70s and throughout the ’80s."). I admit its roots and many of its key operatives can be traced back to the mujahideen groups fighting the Soviets from 1979 onwards. But that is not the same thing.
...and why does the above not constitute game, set and match in the quest to establish a connection between the hijackers and this Saudi family?
The fact that this family left very shortly before the attacks, and left behind numerous valuable items is also highly suspicious.
I'm sorry, but the above constitutes grade-A, Government Approved, Bull Sh!t.
If this issue had been raised by some ambitious, or sensationalist journalist, Geraldo Rivera's name springs to mind, I would not immediately dismiss it, but I would treat it some skepticism. But former Senator Graham is a man who has participated in high-level security investigations, most especially the 9/11 attacks. If he says something smells funny, I trust his investigative nose.
Yes, and it's too bad that the FBI is now going to be seen as just another government cover-up agency.
This sounds like something Holder would come up with, but it all happened before He got his office.
Can we say "COVERUP' ?
I just keep seeing that picture of George W. playing kissy face with his "Uncle" Saudi Prince. The Bush family is so wrapped up with the Bin Ladin and Saudi Royal families that both were allowed to get on their private jets and fly out of Florida on Sept. 12, 2001. The FBI was only permitted a 10 minute interview with these people and only IN the aircraft as they sat waiting to take off. The Bush family (gee, wasn't brother Jeb governor of Florida at the time?) is dirty in this whole situation.
If there was a cover up, then why bring this to light now, unless you want to piss off the Saudi's in an attempt to further raise gas prices that would hurt Obama's chances in November.
Very well said, bluelake.
Eric, must be some bizzare left wing plot as Bob Graham and MSNBC have never been associated with anything in favor of the GOP or the right wing.
There is definitely something fishy here. And by the way, I say this as THE biggest skeptic of the whole truther BS.
I did a search on the Bush/Bin Laden family ties and came accross an article on the Denver post. Here's an excerpt:
With fewer than 50 ground troops surrounding the massive Tora Bora region in
the mountains of Afghanistan where bin Laden was hiding, ground commanders
pleaded for 800 more soldiers, according to Gary Berntsen, the CIA field
commander whose book "Jawbreaker" goes into amazing detail about the botched
paramilitary operation. Bernt-
sen and other ground commanders said the U.S. let Osama bin Laden get away.
Was this because of President George Bush's close ties to the bin Laden
family?
In 1978, Bush and Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, founded Arbusto
Energy, an oil company based in Texas.
Several bin Laden family members invested millions in The Carlyle Group, a
private global equity firm based in Washington, DC. The company's senior advisor
was Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush. After news of the bin
Laden-Bush connection became public, the elder Bush stepped down from Carlyle.
Interestingly, on Sept. 11, 2001, members of the Carlyle Group - including
Bush senior, and his former secretary of state, James Baker - were meeting at
the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C., along with Shafiq bin Laden, another
one of Osama bin Laden's brothers.
While all flights were halted following the terrorist attacks, there was one exception made: The White House authorized planes to pick up 140 Saudi nationals, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, living in various cities in the U.S. to bring them back to Saudi Arabia, where they would be safe. They were never interrogated.
Five years later, and we're still asking questions. We may have lost our
innocence but we're also losing, thankfully, our ignorance.
Read
more: Bush ties to
bin Laden haunt grim anniversary - The Denver Post #ixzz1p0mMHmt6
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content:
See ? The theories go on and on and become more wid as we go along, all of them accusing George Bush of doing outlandish things. The purpose of Sen. Graham becomes more clear : throwing mud on the name Bush. This is the crux of the whole exercise, never mind that there could be serious repercussions for our diplomacy.
This also fits in nicely with Obama saying that we should get away from oil as our primary energy source, although there would be none other as convenient and cheap and available. Why the hesitation about the Keystone oil exploration ? It is insanity. To have alternatative sources running will take decades. I am reminded of Al Gore - he also saw a lot of money in duping the people.
Allow me to add another conspiracy theory : this is a concerted effort by Graham and other Democrats ! They do fear Jeb Bush and the whole Bush family and no matter what the consequences may be - the feel the need to fight dirty. phew !
No one would go out of their way to throw more mud on Bush's name. As the most unpopular president in memory, Bush has enough mud on him to last a lifetime.
out in the woods #3.7: Damn!, You really are out in the woods. You reject all the evident inconsistencies and illogical presentments of the 911 commission, and the contrary perceptions so many have of Its actuality, relative to those presentments, then turn right around and put forth one of the silliest explanations of why so many are so suspicious of that event, and especially the official presentments of the event. I assure you. Fear of a Bush, or even a thicket of Bushes have nothing to do with it. The culprit here is a complete absence of basic logic required by physical reality.
out in the woods- You need to get out OF the woods once in while. Your theory, as Bart and Mac point out, is ludicrous. Further, how can you not understand that we absolutely must get away from using oil as a primary energy source. Try not to be so short sighted. Oil is a very limited resource and we use it for many things other than fuel. We have to get away from powering our cars, heating our houses and fueling giant power plants with oil. Maybe not tomorrow but soon. Meanwhile, the oil companies, like the tobacco industry will spend millions and millions to keep us addicted.
OutInThe Woods: I agree with you and shame on Sen. Graham. I am a robust-Bush Republican and from
Day 1 there has been a "conspiracy" to blacken his name or they are in cahoots and you nailed it, that
they are afraid Jeb will enter the race. As for me, I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution to
give him a third term and let the voters decide between him and Pres. Obama in 2012 I'd predict another
wild election. BTW, cahoots is a strange word, but these are strange times
I absolutely do not understand that people still cling to the idea that oil was a motivation for any actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are most certainly NOT dependent on any oil outside of that produced in North American. Period.
1) Historically, the US has been a net exporter of oil. That means that we produce more than we consume and sell the excess. By about 1970 or so, we became a net exporter of oil, but what we got from Mexico alone was sufficient that North America was a net exporter. As consumption and prices rose, oil sands in Canada came in just as demand was peaking in the US.
2) Today, they US is a net exporter of oil without considering Mexico or Canada. This is primarily because the oil industry has developed new technologies that allow closed or marginal oil wells to become productive again (at a very low cost.) We are not today dependent on oil from any foreign country including Mexico and Canada.
3) The cost of production of crude in the US is around $17-18 a barrel. In Mexico it is about $20 and in Canada it is more like $55 (but coming down.) American and Mexican crude tends to be the best in the world --- light, non-acidic, low sulfur.
4) One exception to my rant is oil from Venezuela. The Venezuelan government owns Citgo, including company gas stations, refineries, and pipelines. Citgo imports oil only from Venezuela and there is little that can be done about short of nationalizing Citgo. We don't need to import it, but it is Citgo's choice.
5) We get more oil from Africa than from the Middle East.
6) So, if American oil is all we need and its cost of production is far below international oil prices, what makes American gasoline prices fluctuate with international prices? It is a shell game and there isn't a pea. The American oil industry does to the American consumer exactly what Enron did to California with electricity. Enron would buy massive amounts of electricity in California, then "ship" it on paper out of state, creating a shortage, then sell the electricity back to California at a huge markup. American oil companies export huge amounts of American oil (as much as 30%) making a huge profit because of the disparity between the cost of production and overseas oil prices. They then import oil from other countries, primarily Nigeria, to replace the oil. By doing this they "peg" the cost of crude to the international market instead of the domestic market.
7) If American oil companies, willingly or unwillingly, adopted an "America first" policy and did not co-mingle foreign and domestic oil as a scam, the price of gasoline would fall below a dollar a gallon almost immediately. And oil companies would still be among the most profitable industries in the world.
8) If we worried about future oil dependence, we could simply form a North American Oil Cartel with Canada and Mexico that required that the needs of US, Canadian, and Mexican consumers must be met, based on the cost of production, before a drop of oil was exported. The practice of importing expensive crude to "replace" oil that was sold abroad would be outlawed.
9) We can also outlaw speculation in oil futures. Speculation just adds to the misery without adding or subtracting a drop of crude from the process. If oil speculation were legitimate there would be an approximately equal amount of shorts and longs. Instead speculators bet that the price of oil will go up, then create paper shortages so that it does go up --- but only on paper.
10) We have enough oil in the US to satisfy domestic needs for at least 40 years. Add just oil from Mexico and Canada and we have enough oil foir at least the next hundred years. Add to that the vast amount of natural gas (a BTU is a BTU) available in this country and we have oil and natural gas reserves for many decades if not centuries.
11) And people should have a much better handle on the Keystone pipeline than they do. a) Right now gasoline prices in almost 1/3 of the country are much lower than in the rest of the country because of the absence of a good pipeline connection to Canada. This means that oil is cheaper there. If the pipeline was built, that 1/3 of the country would jump to slightly above the other 2/3. The oil would then flow to Texas refineries where it would be partially-refined and shipped overseas as crude or refined there and the refinery products shipped overseas. All the profits would go to Canada, all the oil overseas, primarily to Japan, China, and South Korea, and all the risk to the American taxpayer. But what troubles me the most would be that the American government would be required to use eminent doman to take hundreds of thousands of acres of land from American citizens for the actual pipeline, easments, access roads, pumping stations. etc.
Bush did enough to blacken his name.
LOL @Phyllis
So want to bring Bush back for another term ? And there is a conspiracy to 'blacken' his name ?
Seriously ??????? He did enough to tarnish his name he can't even stump for any GOP hopeful, EVEN IN TEXAS !
You sound like a recovering heroin addict, who lost everything saying " Just one little bump won't hurt me "
Chris- Here is why I will always cling to the idea that oil was a primary motivation in the war on Iraq. ( not Afghanistan) On every interview he gave in the run up to war in Iraq, Dick Cheney would go through his litany as to the reasons why we needed to invade Iraq. Always on that list, always, was that "Iraq sits on the second largest known oil reserve in the middle east." Of course there was always the WMD bull@!$%# and bad man Saddam crap but he always mentioned the oil. Greed Chris, it's that simple. What's better than having oil? Why having more oil, of course! And they even screwed up at getting control of the Iraqi oil fields, which is what this was all about.
@Phyllis Kunz - I would like to see a Constitutional amendment that bars Jacka$$s like you from ever voting!!
It sounds plausible that a public scandal involving Saudi citizens, subject to official scrutiny and investigation, would somehow upset Saudi officials, and that certain figures in the American government want to keep any such scrutiny hushed. At least, that's what seems to be implied by the concern over Saudi citizens and the FBI's lack of cooperation.
more bush lies and coverups...
he needs to be put in prison and cheney too.
his administration ruins the economy and the worlds economy, then obama inherits it and gets blamed.
Fussy- right there with you on Bush and Cheney, but it's OBAMA who is now president, and he's keeping the coverup rolling.
What do you think is the reason for that?
Believe it or not, Bush /Cheney didn't kill all the dinosaurs either.
Bush & cheney ARE dinosaurs.
No Bush is a dinosaur, Cheney is a cyborg. On that note, I don't really believe white house and its agencies are in sync. I think all agencies are divided amongst them selves each with different security levels etc. I believe the agencies primary funders are members of congress. So, I think the interests and information provided by these agencies such as the FBI might beshared with some of the privileged senators and not always with the president vice-versa. That being said everything is a conspiracy regarding 9/11 because of the too many stones un-turned. Building 7 etc etc. Only thing we have is the information provided by our officials, and we have no choice but listen to them because we don't have any other source and we can't really investigate the government.
Quote from the article " Whether the 9/11 hijackers acted alone, or whether they had support within the U.S., remains an unanswered question -- one that began to be asked as soon as it became known that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. It was underlined when Congress’s bipartisan inquiry released its public report in July 2003. The final 28 pages, regarding possible foreign support for the terrorists, were censored in their entirety -- on President George W. Bush’s instructions."
These last pages should be made public NOW . And pressure should be placed on Obama to get that done.
Where there's smoke there's fire , and Bush & Companys (especially Cheney's) pants have been smokin' for a long time now.
It was known before 9/11 that the Bush crfiminal enterprise would be the "anti"-Clinon administration: anything Clinton was for they would be against. He was for dealing with terrorism, so the Bush criminal enterpirse rejected dealing with it. Ashcfroft, as acting FBI director, told his subbordinates that he didn't want to hear anything about "terrorism"; and that in effect shut the FBI down: the request for warrant to search Massawi's computer was DENIED.
And as the agent testified, she was puzzled and shocked that no one at FBI headquarters wanted to hear anything about "terrorism".
Protecting wealthy Saudis after the attacks has as much to do with class issues -- Bush was of the "have mores" -- as anything else. Those in the top 1 per cent look out for each other.
And it was Bush himself who said, within months after 9/11, that bin Laden didn't matter. So capturing him was avoided by distracting all attention to the "little Hitler"/on-again off-again ally Saddam Hussein.
Im just waiting for the right to turn this into Obama's fault, because you know Republicans never do anything wrong.
It is clear now that Saudi government helped Osama bin Laden to make the terror act 9/11. Bush covered this fact. Too bad. But it is Obama and nobody other who continues to cover this now.
Bush and Obama both suck eggs.
As do the republican candidates for president.
There might be a coverup still going on to protect certain oil-rich Saudis, but, at least President Obama gave the orders to capture/kill bin Laden and did. That is something Cheney/Bush wouldn't do. Those two even announced that bin laden wasn't even important. Instead they borrowed trillions and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of iraqi people and sent our soldiers to die and be maimed for their own selfish reasons.
Does it not occur to some that the entire Bush presidency was a done deal for a major reason? Cheney and Big Daddy Bush go back as far as their involvement in the Nixon administration. Two very close, ver old good buddies who worked in lock step to insure upward mobility.
Cheney tried a run for the presidency in 1994 but his own party wouldn't back him. Ever after, Cheney lusted for the White House no matter how he had to effect that. All those back room deals with the GOP Party Boss, Rover Boi and the rest of the Bush-Cheney comrades in arms catapulted American attention on the impeachment of Clinton instead of the real back room agenda: getting Cheney his White House. Cheney is like an engine that goes into overdrive.
Every Republican president since Reagan has been nothing more than a hapless puppet whose strings are pulled from behind the scenes by the real power bois of the GOP. Bush '43 may be a lot of things. But, savvy isn't one of them. All you have to do to prove that is to put Cheney beside Bush and you see Cheney's engine revving at 100 mph while Bush can't even cope with 25 mph. So, in effect, Bush became Godfather, Cheney's messenger boy. Going where no man would go before...to any oil tap around the globe and making nice to the international oil bois club.
So, it was always former Halliburton CEO, Cheney, who pulled the strings to get Iraq for Halliburton and a host of military industrialists of the 1% league. It was always Cheney's office from which directives emanated. And how very convenient for Bush '41 to offer up his son as the sacrificial Cheney lamb? roflmao. Oh what tangled webs they weaved when first they practiced to deceive.
Eric.......that has what to do with this article? Heaven forbid someone should say something against your idol, obama. Even when it also critisizes Bush. Geeeeez, you need to get a grip. IF Bush covered up....obama is doing the same.
Strange, how so many people are told not to talk. Strange how so much evidence is classified secret. It seems there is a man behind the curtain, pulling the levers, and we should not be allowed to look there.
Our last two Presidents (Bush and Obama) are war criminals and deserve a prison cell. Our next President will be a war criminal after they stop Ron Paul from taking office.
We're at fault more than they are. We elect these sociopaths...or refuse to do anything when they fix our elections. We're either sheep, cowards, or both.
Folks:
Elected officials have IMMUNITY for errors and omissions in reference to the elected jobs.
Bush, Cheney and their associates will never be brought to inquiry much less trial for their actions.
The rules need to be corrected if not changed. Immunity reform, Ethics reform and Campaign finance reform.
Figure out who is willing to change the laws and rules, support them, get them elected and then we'll see real change for the better of our country. Listen to what the candidates are saying, question their answers and most importantly, think before you vote.
I dont think we've been told everything we should know about what happened regarding 911. The FBI withholding information is troubling. Bush censoring the last 28 pages of the 911 report even more so. I wonder of there is any way to get that information made public.
I am a combat veteran of Viet Nam. I see too many similarities between Nam and the middle east. I can parallel so many "documented" occurrences that are or will be shown to be contradictory as time goes by. We have had smoke blown up our skirts on so many occasions that I am no longer under the delusion that our government is the end all that I was taught that it was when I was growing up. Regardless of who is sitting in control the smoke screens are all the same.
Tom and Cranky-
exactly so.
Apparently, according to the article, not unless Mr Obama stops the ongoing coverup and allows "transparency".
NH......... ummm............ it was Bush who stopped the revelations of the last 28 pages of the 911 report at the urging of the Saudi government....... NOT Obama! As for tranparency, you DO know that BOTH Bushes have sealed their official papers at the Bush Library at Texas A&M, beyond the prying eyes of just about everyone. Bush 41 in order to hide his Iran Contra dealings and Bush 43 to hide all kinds of things. They are now beyond reach indefinitely.
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20040423.html
It would be easy for Americans to sit back and let it all happen until we recognize the danger of indifference where government is concerned. Whence comes the point in history where accountability can no longer be ignored and becomes obligatory, people of conscience demand and end to the indifference that allows all manner of deception and corruption. History is rife with the results of lackadaisical societies ignoring their responsibility to demand accountability and transparency their taxes pay for.
Are we there yet?
Tom, I read the article.
Feel free to blame former President Bush for the censorship of the last 28 pages of the report, and President Obama for continuing to cover this up for the past 3 years.
According to the article Bob Graham said
"I think that in the period immediately after 9/11 the FBI was under instructions from the Bush White House not to discuss anything that could be embarrassing to the Saudis," ,
"It is more inexplicable why the Obama administration has been reticent to pursue the question of Saudi involvement. For both administrations, there was and continues to be an obligation to inform the American people through truthful information."
We need an entirely new investiigation of 9/11. The airplanes did not cause the collapse of the twin towers or Bldg 7. Those building were rigged to fall in a controlled demolition. The only way they could have been rigged is with permission from the owner, Silverstein, who had recently insured them for billions against a terror attack.
It's been nearly 11 years now and the American people still haven't been told the truth. The truth needs to come out no matter who it hurts.
How about if it hurts you, John? Continued coverups of the results in investigations are often because revealing the results may compromise the methods of investigation.
Next you're going to tell us that we can't handle the truth. STFU!
So long as government assumes the position of "Father Knows Best" and we remain the ignorant children, they hold all the cards. Their biggest problem right now is that too many Americans have access or know how to access information that rightfully belongs in the public domain.
Remember when Bush datamined millions of American citizens personal information and the righties all said, "Well, if you have nothing to hide...."? Now these same righties will tell you there are things you don't need to know. Of course, this is nothing more than intended control over the great unwashed masses they consider everyone but themselves to be. Give in to their ridiculous ideology and you give sign away your rights and freedom.
THE ANSWER TO MOST OF THE AMBIGUITIES & QUESTIONS HERE
CAN BE ASCERTAINED SIMPLY ASKING YOURSELF...
DOES THE CIA ACTUALLY CONTROL THE POTUS AND THE COUNTRY.....
are the actions we witness the result of of an Agency negating our constitution ?
If Presidents are powerless to change policy
then who is it that sets forth & enforces POLICY ?
Which branch of government has it's own Air Force, Navy, Marines, intelligence & communications network
What would happen if THE Agency told the POTUS,
"Play ball with us or we shut off the flow of info & you go down in flames because of lack of intelligence ." ?
Who could stop them, who would believe the POTUS if he said anything publicly ?
or could he even survive ?
When you smell the same STINK coming from multiple locations sometimes the source is singular .
Anybody remember Watergate??? The FBI was spot on in that one too. When will we be given candidates who represent us and not their friends?
When you vote out all the self serving corrupt politicians from BOTH major parties. And that means from the White House down to the newest Representative and/or Senator.
But to do that, you need to start at the State level. It's there that the corruption starts. It's there that the corrupt politicians gerrymander the district lines to ensure one party whore wins the election over the opposing party whore.
XDm9mm - is there anybody running that AREN'T from the major parties. Even Ron Paul is a Republican.
and don't tell me they need the money .........I thought it was about integrity.
KMC.... therein lies a good part of the problem.... we've permitted opposite sides of the same corrupt coin to gain control of the entire system. A minor part of the possible solution is true campaign finance reform. But as I noted above a MAJOR component of regaining control of our government starts at the State level.
We need INDEPENDENTS in office, people not beholden to any particular political party or party ideology, but beholden to the PEOPLE that put them in office.
I only wish I had a magic ability to correct the rape of this country by the political establishment and ensure that our government actually worked for the people and NOT their own self gratification.
Term limits! Term limites!
Anyone can file to run as an Independent as long as the filing deadline has not already passed. It costs nothing. So do it and run as an Independent so there is a third non party affiliated option for the voters in your district.
KMC-289440 Ron Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican. He could not get the vote if he was running as a true Libertarian. So if he can make it as a Republican so be it. But no one will vote for him so we will never know will we. He has the best ideas of all parties but the sheep and lemmings will follow who they are told to follow.
Ron Paul 2012
No BikeBoy, Paul is a RepubliCON pretending to be a libertarian. He ran in 1988 as a Libertarian, the only time he did, but rejoined the RepubliCON party to run for Congress again. He also left the Libertarian party because he claimed when he joined, he never read the party's platform and did not agree with it.
When ONE GROUP CORRUPTS members of BOTH PARTIES it is not a POLITICAL ISSUUE
it is a FEDERAL CRIME
there CLEARLY exists today a cartel of Congressional, Military & Industrial people who stand outside the laws
and influence contracts with the USA, they hold massive contracts from which the government cannot extract itself and which produce nothing but increased taxes & decreased security & stability .
WE NEED to follow the money & eliminate the corruption at it source no matter , the end, in this case justifies the means, our country & future are all that is at stake .
This whole 9/11 deal smells like a steaming pile of santorum. Not that I would know you understand, it's just a nice way of putting it.
You are worse than Limbaugh.
I trust Graham much more than Clinton, Bush, Obama. Our gov't lies to us on many issues so, for me, this is nothing new. Same shiite, different day.
So Obama was to get in office and suddenly indicate Bush was a great big crook? If you are going to blame someone blame the person, party in charge at the time. Quit finding every little thing you can to besmurch someone a decade later so you can blame the current president for not correcting it. For petes sakes he got Bin Laden which Bush kinda overlooked even though we were still at war for something and he was left with the sack to hold on the Afghan war, the financial crisis and the housing crisis. I think it it kinda looking like a conspiracy to drive our country into the tank and they got fooled. They had someone in the White HOuse finally who was smarter than that. And now look like he is treated. The whole republican party should be ashamed of themselves. All of them. Compare 1932 with 1929 and just think where we would be if we had done nothing except fail like they all wanted. Of course they would have gotten a republican elected in Nov which is the only thing that seems to matter to them. Who cares I guess what that repubican does. The good thing is that many republicans regardless of the polls are seeing that the republican party is becoming a large mess that they can't even begin to support. Heard it several places and they were all once very loyal to the party. There is no way that a republican will be elected in November unless they pull some very big shennangans. No way at all.
ktlin...
excuse me, but if YOU want to continually dredge up the past, maybe you should go back BEFORE Bush...
It was Clinton after-all that opted to not take Bin Laden when he was being handed to him on a silver platter. Had Bill Clinton acted on Bin Laden, 9/11 might possibly have never happened.
See how easy it is to spin the past?
and it was Reagan who armed Bin Laden and kissed his rosy red rectum for all the world to see. Today's friends are tomorrow's enemies. That's how the war machine works
XD. That simply did not happen. Bin Laden was offered to the SAUDIS, who would then turn him over to the US. It's amazing that if a lie is told often enough, it become " a fact".
If the GOP, led by Sens Gramm, Lott and Ashcroft, had not gutted Clinton's anti-terrorism legislation in 1996, which contained MANY of the provisions that ended up in the Patriot Act, maybe THEN 911 wouldnt have happened. If Bush had heeded the MANY warnings flooding the government in the summer of 2001, maybe THEN 911 would not have happend!
Seems to me that the right wingers are allergic to facts.
Sorry Tom, but they had Bin Laden in their sights in Afghanistan in '98 and when they asked for the approval to take him out Clinton said, "No." It did happen and the chance was missed.
Clinton's anti-terrorism act had the provision that the President could declare anyone a "terrorist" and they would be held indefinitely without charge. That's what got it shot down. It was very similar to the section of the NDAA that recently passed allowing the same declaration and detention. Which many don't believe will pass Constitutional muster and it shouldn't.
XD, that claim was made by a Sudanese government official, was never verified and even if it were true. Bin Laden was not under indictment in this country and we had no legal authority for holding him. However, Clinton did state that his one regret was that he didn't try hard enough to get Bin Laden.
Soldier's Dad, that was a story told by Michael Scheuer. Who was too busy giving wads of cash to the Northern Alliance to realize that "person in their sites" was a Saudi Prince and not Bin Laden. Secondly, in 1998, we did not have armed predators, so it would have had to have been a cruise missile strike, which would have taken a lot longer than immediately. Thirdly, the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq authorized the President to detain citizens indefinitely without charge, so to claim the NDAA allowed something new is a bald faced lie. When the President signed the NDAA, he added the following "signing statement:"
"I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
If you had heartburn with this, then blame republiCONS for submitting it as an amendment to the bill that would keep the military funded, and thereby forcing the President to have to sign it.
raddave, you are right. It WAS an arab prince. There was no legal reason for Clinton to arrest, hold or anything else on OBL! And in that defense bill, Gramm snuck in an already defeated ammendment that exempted energy traders (Enron) from SEC oversight! With Wendy Gramm on Enron's board, they all knew something wasnt going right with Enron!
Soldier's Dad ( Im one too)
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=1253419
I suggest you lay off the propaganda and do independent reading.
XM remember "wag the dog"? When anything Clinton did was suppose to be to distract the nation from the scandels the GOP were manufacturering? Clinton couldn't get OBL because the GOP would have used that to punish and demonize him. Remember they needed OBL to scare the American people into supporting their policies. All during W's first term whenever his popularity ratings would drop or there was some legit scandel brewing suddenly one of OBL's tapes would pop into existance and W would be back on top. It's no coincidence there was one right before the 2004 election and another after his illegal spying on US citizens was uncovered.
Now that OBL is dead suddenly it's not important anymore. Going after him was enough to get one incompetent president re-elected now it seems that killing him is enough to justify firing a much better president.
ICTS a foreign owned company registered in the Netherlands controlled 911 airport security.
Odigo sent early warning message.
Five Israelis arrested near Fort Lee filming WTC.
So what would we do if the public was shown credible evidence of Saudi involvement? Invade the worlds gas station? Can you see $10 gas? Suspect the central Saudi govt wasent involved however parts of that govt could have been involved below the King. Their population has been taught to hate the west by a extreme sect of Islam. It would be a wonder if their govt wasent full of religious extremists.
and you actually need to question that? Saudi Arabia is the CENTER of Islam. Lest you forget, Muslims worldwide bow and face MECCA at least 5 times daily for their prayers. Mecca is located in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of western hatred. However, they do follow one guiding principle as long as it suits their needs. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Saudi military is weak and they use us to prop them up and appear strong.
The Saudi military is not weak anymore, not since we sold them all the equipment they needed.
Why is he bringing this up now. This happened 11 years ago and he suddenly is worried? Sounds like politicial bull pucky to me. If there is anything to it he should be in trouble for covering up republican efforts to make something look like it isn't. Imagine that. Was this party ever honest and truthful and did they ever really have morals and ethics? I am truly beginning to wonder.
Ummmm ktlin, No the Bush / Cheney regeme was NOT particularly honest and truthful. I think their actions spoke volumes about their morals and ethics.
I also think this FBI guy had the sense to wait until it was safer to reveal this information. He doesn't want to end up a driving fatality statistic or the victim of a drive by, accidental poisoning, or even a Death Star Ray.
I met a man years ago who worked for the "Warren Commission" (They investigated JFK's assassination). He told me that if the public knew even 1/10th of what the government did and how the government spied on the citizenry etc there would be anarchy. He told me to literally be very afraid and say nothing I did not want the government to know.
And this was BEFORE the age of instant information!
Just food for thought.
Why do you people keep asking that ignorant question? Information is witheld for years, and when it is "declassified" for selected eyes only, you then ask, "Why is he bringing this up NOW?" Why was the information which conflicted with the truth, witheld, from the public, for years, is the correct question.
Who the hell can you believe anymore?
I hope the Tea Partiers and other Republicans notice who suppressed the report, and which party was in charge at the time.....
homesick... and which party is in charge now?????
Are you that gullible? BOTH parties, Republican and Democrat are nothing more than the paid whores of powerful money interests and are on thier knees before that idol all the time.
Both parties have to go. Run Independent, vote Independent, be Independent. To keep electing the same two parties over and over while expecting different results is the very definition of voter insanity.
Thirty Independents elected to Congress would break any majority of both parties forcing them to compromise and work with the Independent body. Voting along party lines would no longer accomplish anything since neither party would have the majority. Both parties would have to convince the Independent body to vote with them on every issue since nothing could get passed without the Independent's votes. The Independents would not be bound by party politics and could easily call the parties out on issues that put party before country. We have to end the party control of our government. It is the very first step in getting our country back to the people and wresting it away from party control.
Republicans are not unhappy that nothing gets passed through Congress. They love gridlock because it "starves the beast" of progressive big government.
Blaming both parties is not only innacurate, but it lessens the guilt of the GOP for the disasters were currently face-- all of which were the result of GOP policies, actions, legislation etc. All of this was planned when reagan assumed the presidency, especially the debt crisis!
it seems to me that all those 911 was an inside job conspiracy theorists gain more credibility with each passing day www.zeitgeistmovie.com
911 the biggest inside job false flag operation in US history. Bigger than Pearl Harbor
Wait a minute! Are you now contending that, in addition to the US Government's supposed masterminding the destruction of the WTC , our government also bombed Pearl Harbor?
I'm stating that Pearl Harbor was provoked by FDR via an embargo, Nothing like a good war effort to get out of a depression I always say
RTSOB----Our government KNEW about the plan for Pearl Harbor months prior to the event. It was a legitimate way into the war OR our government refused to believe the Japanese would have the temerity to try it much less succeed. (It depends on your viewpoint)
I think that any country who advocates tossing infants and toddlers up in the air and catching them on bayonets or tying live people to the keels of ships and heading into waters infested with sharks and Man-o-war- jellies would do anything----don't you?
lexi, you need to change your tin foil hat.
raddave...you need to come down off your high intellectual horse. Talk facts and avoid calling names please...it makes for a much more productive and enjoyable debate.
raddave...im not sure about the more graphic things lexi states but we probably did know about Pearl Harbor before it happened along with Churchill. America was an isolationist back then we were for all intents and purposes still in depression/recession and had no appetite for war. FDR needed an excuse so we blockaded the Japanese Harbors. This did not sit well with them. Also bear in mind WW2 was before then Geneva Convention and atrocities were commonplace in the end. No retreat no surrender no loss of face for the Japanese; fight to the death; Bataan Death march; Kamakzi pilots etc. Word was that both FDR and Churchill knew exactly where those planes were and even took pains to get more of the modern fleet out of the harbor before the attack as he could not afford to lose the entire fleet
Sounds like a few more SAUDIS may have been indirectly involved in 9/11 but that they were given the benefit of the doubt in the essence of good relations with the King.
SAUDI ARABIA owns Washington DC. Oil = power.
Only IDIOTS assume that GOVERNMENTS & MARKETS control BIG OIL
As a human, you cannot do a single thing without the aid of PETROLEUM & BIG OIL MAKING A PROFIT .
You cannot wipe your Butt or turn on the Tap, turn on the lights or pull the sheets over you and go back to sleep
BIG OIL gets PAID FIRST before ANY transaction or function takes place...
DON'T FLUSH THAT TOILET
DON'T BLOW YOUR NOSE
and no OIL will flow
thru any hose
all others PAY CASH UPFRONT
It actually astounds me that something like this is front page on a mainstream news site. Look, you don't have to be a conspiracy "theorist" to at least admit that there unacceptable, unexplained coincidences that occurred before, on, and in the short time after 9/11. We want a new investigation, we want the answers to the questions that we aren't "allowed" to ask.
Why were no Jets scrambled after one building was already hit?
Why did Cheney order Norad to stand down?
Why is there no more footage of the Pentagon crash?
Where are the black boxes for the planes?
How did WTC's 1 and 2 fall at free fall speed?
How did WTC 7 fall at free fall speed without being struck by a plane?
Why did Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complexes, take out a new insurance policy on asbestos filled buildings that he tried to get a demo permit on just weeks before the attack?
Why is there no debris from flight 93 in PA? Tail section? Wing section? Fuselage? Rolls Royce engines?
Why did Bush and Cheney testify in secrecy?
Why... is it considered ridiculous to ask any of these questions????
I for one, want answers.
I don't agree with a few of your questions (there is footage of the Pentagon crash ) but I wholeheartedly agree with your demand for answers on most of your questions.
All your questions HAVE been answered, and not by it being a big, bad government conspiracy. Man you need to quit living in a dream world and geta life!!!
KMC- The video that was released was from a gas station and is 5 frames per second. In those 5 frames, I do not see a Boeing. You can see multiple cameras above the pentagons roof that over watch every square inch. Where is the video from these cameras? Remember, this is supposedly the most secure building in the world.
Ragtopz- I didn't even want to address you. I am sorry that you are so ill-informed. I do not claim to know exactly what happened on 9/11. I understand that you believe the official story verbatim in it's entirety, so there is no convincing you otherwise. You obviously have not taken the time out of your busy day to get the facts.
Ragtopz....yes youre right because a government NEVER lies to its people
Why were no Jets scrambled after one building was already hit?
-Because the immediate assumption was that a horrible accident had occurred, and no more than that.
Why did Cheney order Norad to stand down?
-I don't know, do you? (By the way, the VP does not have that authority; the president does.)
Why is there no more footage of the Pentagon crash?
-Because all available footage was released. I have a close relative who was working in the
Pentagon, very nearby, at the time of the incident. He was among the first to assist in rescue
operations. I trust his account of what happened, as opposed to your ignorant assumptions.
Where are the black boxes for the planes?
-These were very violent and destructive crashes. What do you think those boxes are made
of - Kryptonite?
How did WTC's 1 and 2 fall at free fall speed?
-At what velocity would you expect them to fall when they are unsupported. Read a physics book.
How did WTC 7 fall at free fall speed without being struck by a plane?
-Shock waves from the fall of the massive structures nearby. That was bound to weaken the
support of WTC 7.
Why did Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complexes, take out a new insurance policy on asbestos filled buildings that he tried to get a demo permit on just weeks before the attack?
-What buildings? Where? And what does that have to do with 911?
Why is there no debris from flight 93 in PA? Tail section? Wing section? Fuselage? Rolls Royce engines?
-Duhh...because they cleaned up the crash site? Would you expect it all to be left there?
Why did Bush and Cheney testify in secrecy?
-Because of the respect accorded to their offices. Remember when that used to be the norm?
Why... is it considered ridiculous to ask any of these questions????
-Because, to any thinking person unobsessed, the questions answer themselves.
RTSOB- You are kidding right? What did you answer? Nothing.
1)Why were no Jets scrambled after one building was already hit?
-Because the immediate assumption was that a horrible accident had occurred, and no more than that.
Actually, it was known that planes were off course. So it was known that this was no accident buddy.
2)Why did Cheney order Norad to stand down?
-I don't know, do you? (By the way, the VP does not have that authority; the president does.)
I hope that you know that the rules were changed on this only months before 911, NORAD needs direct orders from the president OR vice president. And in the particular case Cheney told NORAD that the orders to stand down were still in effect AFTER building 1 was hit. Please google, "cheney tells norad to stand down from his bunker"
3)Why is there no more footage of the Pentagon crash?
-Because all available footage was released. I have a close relative who was working in the
Pentagon, very nearby, at the time of the incident. He was among the first to assist in rescue
operations. I trust his account of what happened, as opposed to your ignorant assumptions.
Please do me one favor. Send me the videos. Pretty please because I am dying to see them. Show me ONE video from the Pentagon's surveillance camera's of the plane that struck the Pentagon on 9/11.
4)Where are the black boxes for the planes?
-These were very violent and destructive crashes. What do you think those boxes are made
of - Kryptonite?
This is the part where you lose all credibility with me. Go and look up what black boxes are made of. Thank you. Now that you know that they cannot melt or be destroyed by jet fuel, you now need to understand the history of black boxes. There were a total of 8 for the planes involved in 911 ( 2 for each plane ). In the history of the WORLD, there are 8 black boxes that have been destroyed. Guess which 8?
5) How did WTC's 1 and 2 fall at free fall speed?
-At what velocity would you expect them to fall when they are unsupported. Read a physics book.
Me read a physics book? Have you read any of Newton's laws? Please watch the collapse again, there is no resistance from the remaining floors. Any 4 year old with half a brain who has played with lego's would understand this concept.
6)How did WTC 7 fall at free fall speed without being struck by a plane?
-Shock waves from the fall of the massive structures nearby. That was bound to weaken the
support of WTC 7.
I can't even fathom where you got this information from. I wonder if you have even seen the collapse of WTC7. This building fell at 5:20pm... 8 hours after the collapses of WTC's 1 and 2, a "shockwave collapse" would have taken place shortly after. This building falls with no resistance to the floors beneath it. You sir, need a physics book.
7)Why did Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complexes, take out a new insurance policy on asbestos filled buildings that he tried to get a demo permit on just weeks before the attack?
-What buildings? Where? And what does that have to do with 911?
What do you mean what buildings? The entire World Trace Center complex. In New York City, USA, Earth. God I feel like I'm arguing with a child. Think about it, if you took out a life insurance policy months before your wife ends up dead, wouldn't you think that you would be investigated.. as there is motive? Larry Silverstein mades billions off of the WTC buildings collapse. This is public information that you obviously have no idea about.
8)Why is there no debris from flight 93 in PA? Tail section? Wing section? Fuselage? Rolls Royce engines?
-Duhh...because they cleaned up the crash site? Would you expect it all to be left there?
No, actually the pictures from the debris field are taken before cleanup crews arrived. Also, the coroner was unable to find a single body or drop of blood. This is documented. Google image search a plane crash. Why does this look NOTHING like one?
9)Why did Bush and Cheney testify in secrecy?
-Because of the respect accorded to their offices. Remember when that used to be the norm?
If they have nothing to hide, why did they testify together?
10)Why... is it considered ridiculous to ask any of these questions????
-Because, to any thinking person unobsessed, the questions answer themselves.
No they don't. Not at all. There are many, many more questions that I could have posted but just limited it to a few. These questions are not answered completely or honestly by the government, and you know it.
I was working at a television station on 9/11. I saw both the broadcast & the raw news feeds from Shanksville (as well as NY & the Pentagon) as soon as cameras were on-sight, & all there was at Shanksville was a small trench in the ground & almost NO wreckage & very little smoke...I remember our news anchors, several of which had over 20 years news experience from all over the country, as being completely mystified, as well as upset, at the lack of wreckage at the site. There is NO way it was already cleaned up...
What many people seem to forget is that not too long after the attacks, when reporters & news people started voicing concerns about inconsistencies, the anthrax-laced letters began arriving & the original footage from all the networks' 9/11 coverage started "changeing", "disappearing", getting "lost in the confusion", etc...
There are still some clips, excerpts, interviews, et. al that still show MANY troubling, down-right scary inconsistencies, & yes, most are on conspiracy websites, but where would you expect to find them? Not on any official government sites, that's for sure...
I distinctly remember reporters talking about "missiles" in the Shanksville & Pentagon sites, as well as eyewitnesses minutes after the attacks, some of who went so far as saying they thought they were Harpoon or Tomahawk missiles...since then, most of these televised interviews are nowhere to be found & many eyewitnesses have recanted or are now unwilling to talk...
You're all wrong: the World Trade Center and the 2,750 souls who allegedly perished never really existed. They were actually holograms projected by the CIA, and were "destroyed" to provide the Bush administration with a pretext for invading Iraq. The human holograms were so realistic that I believed I attended college class with one and worked a summer job with another! It's time the world learned the truth! (the previous rant is intended as SARCASM)
But see how easy it is to concoct a wild conspiracy? Some reader(s) out there probably will believe what I just wrote because they will believe anything of a conspiratorial nature.
^ So, what you're saying is that all conspiracies are made up? It is impossible to conspire? Please. Not every conspiracy is a theory.
Why was Henry Kissinger the first choice to oversee the 9/11 Commission's "investigation"?
Why was the final overseer chosen to be Philip Zelikow, again in defiance to the victims' families' concerns?
Why was the steel whisked away so quickly and under such intense monitoring? Better yet, why was it not thoroughly examined for evidence of explosives, like those that could produce a collapse similar to the one that occurred in WTC7 ?
How were all the hijackers able to get through security? Some of them had expired passports, and other issues that should normally be caught before-hand...
How were certain hijackers able to pull off such maneuvers when, at least in one instance, the hijacker supposedly piloting the plane could not fly a small single-engine plane?
How did certain "passports" of the hijackers, later used as evidence, survive intense crashes/fire/demolition...while some black boxes supposedly did not???
Why are so many experts in so many fields convinced that a new, truly independent investigation needs to take place?
Why was Susan Lindauer silenced via the Patriot Act and subsequently made out to be a total nutcase, when in fact she is completely coherent??? Could it be that she is telling the truth??
Why have many key witnesses suspiciously died?? Are their deaths being investigated at all in relation to a cover up??? After preliminary research, the answer appears to be a "no".
Why has so much evidence, most prominent of which is eye witness reports, of explosives going off on the day been completely dismissed or outright ignored? For instance the van(s) in the parking garage..
KeepComposure:
YOU WROTE: "So, what you're saying is that all conspiracies are made up? It is impossible to conspire? Please. Not every conspiracy is a theory."
MY RESPONSE: Please try to live up to your moniker, by truly "keeping your composure." Consider this: if the destruction of World Trade Center (WTC) were an "inside job" (like the far-left loons proclaim), then such a conspiracy realistically would have had to include a VERY LARGE group of conspirators. We all know that the US government (or any similar gaggle of people, for that matter) can't keep secrets very well. For example, notice how quickly our atom bomb secrets were leaked to the Russians.
Also, George Bush (president at the time) was supposed to be so dumb, according to the left wing kooks who typically invent these conspiracy theories, that he could not possibly organize, carry out, and keep secret a project of such magnitude requiring a LARGE GROUP of conspirators. One or more of the actual participating conspirators at some time in some place would eventually have "spilled the beans" by providing key information that only "insiders" could know.
Or, perhaps we had it all wrong: maybe George Bush was really a brilliant, incredibly skilled, and highly-schooled strategist who outwitted even his most ardent detractors as well as a whole host of seasoned, professional investigators.
Oh, by the way, someone (maybe you) mentioned Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles in their sympathetic acceptance of a WTC conspiracy. The Harpoon is an anti-ship missile. The last I heard, NO SHIPS were involved in the WTC disaster. That's what I mean by nonsense conspiracy theories.
Rhonda Lucky-296458
If you knew anything about how a conspiracy is orchestrated, you would understand that only a very limited number of people high in command would have any knowledge of it. The rest would be clueless pawns. I'm not saying that everyone in the government is involved, or that everyone in it is a criminal. There is no doubt in my mind (and most free thinking Americans) that there are criminal elements rooted within. And they come from people who are far superior than our government. But you know what rhonda? You keep thinking that all the politicians, government officials, and the elite wake up every morning and skip to work through fields of rainbows and butterflies.
By the way, I did not bring up the missiles, but I believe he was talking about a Cruise Missile. Either way, that's irrelevant. I'm not saying a missile hit The Pentagon, but I know damn sure that a Boeing did not. The roof was still intact for crying out loud! Remember, this is the same type of aircraft that supposedly made two modern day skyscrapers fall at free fall speed and turn into DUST.
Keep, pictures show that the roof did collapse where the plane hit it. The only one that don't are clearly photoshopped.
If you'll re-read my post, I wasn't claiming ANYTHING was a missile, no matter what type. I just remember eyewitnesses, most of whom NEVER saw any jet airliner, but did see or hear "something" fly quickly overhead, & then heard a subsequent explosion. And yes, there only has to be a few key figures involved. Talk to anyone who's been in the military for any amount of time & they will tell you that they can be sworn to absolute secrecy about anything, whether it be sinister or mundane; their job, reputation, pension, family, etc. depends on this, as they are involved in issues of National Security, the "blanket option" that can be used to cover anything, at any time...
KeepComposure:
YOU WROTE: "If you knew anything about how a conspiracy is orchestrated, you would understand that only a very limited number of people high in command would have any knowledge of it. The rest would be clueless pawns."
MY RESPONSE: Highly unlikely in this case. Some authors on this thread are even skeptical about the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, as if that episode was just another part of the “conspiracy” theory connected to 9/11.
Well then, wouldn’t Flight 93 have to have been either an “imaginary” flight or a “staged” crash? And if that plane were an “imaginary” flight that did NOT crash, what happened to the 40 people on-board when the aircraft left Newark, New Jersey, on 9/11? And what about all the phone calls to loved ones from some of the passengers on that flight? Were all those phone calls part of the trickery? If so, all 40 passengers must have been part of the “conspiracy.” So, it amazes me that none of those 40 passengers has returned to their families or “spilled the beans” about the “conspiracy.” I wonder where they are these days and what they’re doing to entertain themselves.
On the other hand, if Flight 93 were actually a “staged” crash, did all 40 passengers on board have a suicide pact for some greater good? I’m not understanding the "conspiracy." Are you?
Lol, Rhonda, you clearly have an agenda here. And you use tactics characteristic of social engineers/divide and conquer strategists.
You claim those who theorize an "inside job" are "far-left loons". This claim of yours is in-line with the LEFT/RIGHT paradigm strategy - divide and conquer - that presupposes many things, least of which is the very near-sighted idea that these theories are simply anti-Bush in origin. I would submit they are FACT-related in origin and are anti-government-lies if anything.
Facts are facts. I am neither a liberal democrat or a conservative republican, I am a Constitutionalist. I believe in limited government like most of our founders, I believe in liberty and justice for all. I believe in a free market economy as advocated by Ludwig von Mises and Frederick Hayek and Adam Smith. I believe aggressive wars are completely unConstitutional and should be avoided at EVERY cost. I am neither from the far-left or far-right, nor anywhere in the middle..I am most-likely leaning toward libertarian in the FOUR-WAY political spectrum (liberal, conservative, libertarian, progressive).
I do not believe most of the official government conclusion, especially that the towers fell from fire weakening the steel as the ultimate culprit in bringing down the first 3 steel-framed buildings in the history of our planet.
To get to your other claims...
"then such a conspiracy realistically would have had to include a VERY LARGE group of conspirators"
Why does this need to be so?
"We all know that the US government (or any similar gaggle of people, for that matter) can't keep secrets very well."
It kept the secret of the Manhattan Project for quite some time, which involved 100,000+ individuals. Some aspects of the project are still classified to this day.
"For example, notice how quickly our atom bomb secrets were leaked to the Russians."
This is a poor comparison. Secrets dealing with technology are obviously highly desirable information and are able to be utilized by foreign countries for their own ends - defensively and/or offensively. They will take the risk of retaliation to gain these secrets, which they will presumably KNOW to be true.
Where your comparison fails completely is this:
1. You suppose that the cost-benefit ratio for people to expose any hypothetical secrets about a 9/11 cover-up would be worth the risk (as in stealing tech secrets). This would obviously NOT be the case, unless a brave individual who has access to such info values what they deem to be true over what they could gain through bribery or would receive as retaliation (including death). Notice I'm not saying people haven't spoken out with what they claim to be facts against the official story, but I'm pointing out that there is no real physical and immediate reward for someone to steal/expose secrets about a 9/11 cover up, which is what your comparison would suggest.
2. There HAVE been whistle-blowers at various levels exposing inconsistencies and unresolved issues about the official 9/11 story. One Susan Lindauer comes to mind...
3. Much of what we know to be inconsistencies are not even secret, but a matter of public record...so perhaps your whole point is moot anyway...
Ray, what are you trying to insinuate with your questions about Kissinger, who resigned because he would have to disclose clients of his consulting firm. and Zelikow, who was not the chairman of the committee but was the director of the support staff? That you think it was a Jewish plot?
You do not need to show a passport when traveling domestically in the states and prior to 9/11, you didn't have to show a photo ID.
How many "key witnesses" have "mysteriously died?"
If you are going to bring down a building with controlled demolition, vans in the underground parking garage weren't going to bring down the WTC.
Susan Lindauer was not silenced by the Patriot Act, she was charged being an unregistered lobbyist for a foreign government (Iraq).
There were only 4 passports recovered and it is possible for debris, including passports be blown away from the crash sites and not be destroyed by fire. Three of them were recovered at crash sites, the fourth was found in a suitcase that was not put on the flight.
You are trying to make it sound like they would have to be skilled and experienced pilots to pull off what the did. The hardest thing about flying, is landing, and they weren't doing that. The rest is easy, even on a jumbo jet.
KeepComposure:
YOU WROTE: "But you know what rhonda? You keep thinking that all the politicians, government officials, and the elite wake up every morning and skip to work through fields of rainbows and butterflies."
MY RESPONSE: I never wrote or implied what you just authored, which is irrelevant anyway. That's all a figment of YOUR imagination, just like the 9/11 conspiracy theory is.
I realize that the government contains some crooks and some buffoons, just like most other large organizations. But I also realize that our government is not savvy enough to pull off a 9/11 conspiracy and maintian lock-tight SECRECY among a host of participants for such a long time. I think you're naive to believe otherwise. But hey, it's a free country...believe what you want to believe, even though it's preposterous!
Thank you Ray.
Rhonda,
It's not this lock-tight secrecy that keeps people from knowing the truth. It's the control of the media. Whoever controls your eyeballs controls your brain. It is not your fault that you think the way that you do. From birth we are subliminally programmed to accept anything the media says as fact, and anything that anyone else says to disagree with them as a nut. Even though the media will have no proof other than a reporters statement, you will believe this over somebody standing right in front of you with documented facts in hand. "oh well, I saw on the news that...."
This is exactly what's wrong with this country, people do not think for themselves anymore!
Wake up. How much has Iraq or Afghanistan gained from these wars? They did it because they hate our freedom? God, I can't believe people bought that excuse. How much has the military industrial complex, Halliburton, the Carlyle group, other war profiteer companies, Israel, and Washington gained from this? Tons more. Those countries are over there getting slaughtered in the name of "freedom" and getting shot with depleted uranium bullets. Is this what they gained? Think about it. The people who can benefit the most from something are often the ones who are to blame. It's extremely easy to cover an event up if you can also control what is aired on national and international media.
All this war and agony over 911 for our "freedom", and all we have done in the time being is lose some of our real freedoms for a false sense of security with the Patriot Act and the NDAA.
Well-said KeepCompsure.
To raddave:
"Ray, what are you trying to insinuate with your questions about Kissinger, who resigned because he would have to disclose clients of his consulting firm. and Zelikow, who was not the chairman of the committee but was the director of the support staff? That you think it was a Jewish plot?"
I'm sorry, I thought the Kissinger issue was obvious??? Kissinger is known to the vast majority of Americans as COMPLETELY untrustworthy, if not jail-worthy. My point is then, why would him being chosen be EVEN A THOUGHT in the minds of those who had the authority (Bush?) to appoint him to the position?? There was clearly a reason why they tried to choose him for the role, of course without proper evidence we can only postulate, but at the very least it warrants a good amount of suspicion. The very same thing goes for Zedikow, look up his history as to why if you are unfamiliar with it.
"You do not need to show a passport when traveling domestically in the states and prior to 9/11, you didn't have to show a photo ID."
My point was two-fold. 1) They got on the flight with weaponry. 2) They (perhaps not all of them though) were illegally in the United States. This would either be a deliberate oversight or an accidental one, it needs to be investigated thoroughly.
"How many "key witnesses" have "mysteriously died?" "
Here's a place to start:
Barry Jennings (Eyewitness to explosions and bodies inside WTC7) -- Undisclosed causes
Kenneth Johannemann (Eyewitness to explosions inside WTC, Saw no airplanes hit but just saw "floors blow up") -- Gunshot to the head, ruled a suicide
Beverly Eckert (Wife of 9/11 WTC Victim, Earwitness to WTC Explosion, Refused hush money) -- Airplane crash
Prasanna Kalahasthi (Wife of 9/11 "Flight 11 Passenger") -- Suicide by hanging
David Graham (Dentist who saw three of the 9/11 Hijackers with Pakistani businessman in Shreveport, Louisiana) -- Murdered (Poisoned with anti-freeze)
Paul Smith (Pilot of WABC7's 9/11 "International Shot" Chopper) -- Car accident
Michael H. Doran (9/11 Victims Lawyer) -- Airplane crash
Bertha Champagne (Longtime babysitter for 911 Perp Marvin Bush's family) -- Crushed by a car
Christopher Landis (Former Operations Manager for Safety Service Patrol for the Virginia Department of Transportation, Interviewed by makers of "The Pentacon", Gave makers of "The Pentacon" a photo collection, Involved in the response to the Pentagon attack) -- Suicide
John P. O'Neill (FBI Counter-terrorism expert, Obsessed with catching Osama Bin Laden, Suspected Clinton/Bush/FBI complicity in the cover-up and protection of Bin Laden) -- Died in the WTC on 9/11
Deborah Palfrey (Ran an escort service that had 911 Perps on it's list) -- Suicide by hanging
David Wherley (US General who ordered fighter jets to scramble on 9/11) -- Train crash
Un-named Ticket Agent (Boston Logan Ticket Agent who checked Atta and Alomari) -- Suicide
Suzanne Jovin (Yale Student who had a thesis about Osama Bin Laden, Her thesis adviser was an intelligence operative) -- Murdered (Killer unknown)
Perry Kucinich (Brother of Congressman who advocated new 9/11 investigation) -- Fell down
Salvatore Princiotta (9/11 FDNY Firefighter from Ladder 9) -- Murdered
Ezra Harel (Chairman of the Israeli Company That Handled Security For All 9/11 Airports) -- Heart attack
Bruce Ivins (Patsy in the 9/11-linked "Anthrax" Case) -- Drug overdose
"If you are going to bring down a building with controlled demolition, vans in the underground parking garage weren't going to bring down the WTC."
Correct you are. So why were they there? Did we investigate into it? Where did these vans come from? Were they also evil Muslims with box-cutters?
"Susan Lindauer was not silenced by the Patriot Act, she was charged being an unregistered lobbyist for a foreign government (Iraq).
She was arrested via the Patriot Act, and charged with a bogus charge...or so she claims. And she was also accused of being mentally incompetent, requiring drugs to fix her supposedly. I've listened to her, and unless the person I've listened to is not Susan Lindauer, she sounds VERY coherent to me...
"There were only 4 passports recovered and it is possible for debris, including passports be blown away from the crash sites and not be destroyed by fire. Three of them were recovered at crash sites, the fourth was found in a suitcase that was not put on the flight."
Sure, anything's possible... Do you not find it slightly odd that the suitcase was "left" there?
"You are trying to make it sound like they would have to be skilled and experienced pilots to pull off what the did. The hardest thing about flying, is landing, and they weren't doing that. The rest is easy, even on a jumbo jet."
Oh really? It's that easy huh? The claimed maneuvers of flight 93 are simply not possible from an amateur...but then again, anything's possible!
Google flight 93 and you will see plenty of pics of flight 93 debris, including the flight recorders, which were used in the trial of Moussaoui. Although I agree there is plenty of room for doubt about the official explanation I believe these doubts center around "who knew what and when". There are plenty of witnesses who saw the Pentagon hit by a passenger jet. There are some who were so close they could see terrified passengers through the windows of the plane. These planes and the loved ones in them just didn't disappear into the twilight zone.
xvet
RaySJ:
YOU WROTE: "You suppose that the cost-benefit ratio for people to expose any hypothetical secrets about a 9/11 cover-up would be worth the risk (as in stealing tech secrets). This would obviously NOT be the case, unless a brave individual who has access to such info values what they deem to be true over what they could gain through bribery or would receive as retaliation (including death)."
MY RESPONSE: You've got to be kidding! Any person who was an actual participant in a "9/11 insider conspiracy" (meaning "inside the US Government") and "spilled the beans" would be considered a national hero whose name would go down in the history books for all time. That would be quite an incentive for such a person to come forward and reveal all. That person would be closely watched and protected by those who hunger for the facts. And if that "whistle blower" were to be assassinated somehow, his name would still be a part of history and would fuel further, more diligent inquiries as to what actually happened on 9/11.
I think the major flaw in your thinking is assuming that none of the alleged participants in an "insider conspiracy" has enough patriotism and/or courage to come forward despite the risks in order to set the record straight. Like I wrote above, there's plenty of incentive to be THE "WHISTLE BLOWER" OF ALL TIME...enduring fame, public admiration, patriotic role model, widespread popularity, etc. That "Whistle Blower" would have helped the country rather than hurt it. So, your comparison to stealing tech secrets is a poor example because your example would hurt the country rather than help it. Therefore, your example would invite just the opposite results...public scorn, charges of treason, disdain, hatred, etc. It's like comparing oranges and apples.
Besides, what would be a rational explanation for murdering thousands of your own citizens, terrorizing your own public, and causing untold destruction in a few of your own cities? Please explain that type of nonsense.
KeepCompsure:
YOU WROTE: "It is not your fault that you think the way that you do. From birth we are subliminally programmed to accept anything the media says as fact, and anything that anyone else says to disagree with them as a nut."
MY RESPONSE: Please don't include me in your sweeping generalizations because I'm one of the most skeptical people on earth when it comes to believeing what the mainstream media spews. I try to gather information from a wide variety of sources because the truth usually is buried somewhere in the stack of reports I see, hear, or witness myself. In other words, one grain of truth is often mixed with confusion caused by biased reporters having an agenda. I usually go with the mantra "if it doesn't make sense, it must not be true." And that's precisely why I don't believe that 9/11 was an "inside job."
You seem to parrot the talking points of the far-left whacko's who see conspiracies everywhere, to include 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haliburton, the military-industrial complex, the Patriot Act, and the list goes on and on. My God, how do you fear-mongers sleep at night with all the "conspiracies" brewing around you?
RaySJ:
YOU WROTE (in regard to 9/11): "How many 'key witnesses' have 'mysteriously died'?" (Then you presented a laundry list of so-called "key witnesses")
MY RESPONSE: After reading your list of so-called "key witnesses," your credibility took a nose-dive with me. I mean, come on, the wife of a Flight 11 passenger is considered a "key witness" by you? Or the lawyer for one of the 9/11 victims is a "key witness?" Or the brother of a Congressman who advocated a new 9/11 investigation is a "key witness?" What IMPORTANT, RELEVANT information could they have? I suppose if I told you that my grandmother's next door neighbor retired from his janitorial job in the World Trade Center just two months before 9/11, you'd conclude that HE IS ALSO A "KEY WITNESS" to your conspiracy theory, and therefore belongs on the list you recently posted. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh! Where do you people come from?
"Any person who was an actual participant in a "9/11 insider conspiracy" (meaning "inside the US Government") and "spilled the beans" would be considered a national hero whose name would go down in the history books for all time. That would be quite an incentive for such a person to come forward and reveal all. That person would be closely watched and protected by those who hunger for the facts."
Incorrect, completely. We have seen what happens to people who indeed have spoken out that the whole ordeal reeks and that questions need to be asked. Just asking QUESTIONS and they get lambasted by talking heads on the major news networks.
Your ridiculous notion that they would be welcomed as heroes by a majority population that already was in love with idea of hunting down every single "jihadist" goes completely against reality. You have got to be kidding me...this is reality Rhonda, and I can't believe you're denying it...
"After reading your list of so-called "key witnesses," your credibility took a nose-dive with me."
Judging from your supposed use of logic with the previous post I just responded to, I take this as a compliment.
Anyone that reads your last post should be able to think for themselves and realize that you really don't have a point. Those people could be key witnesses in any number of ways. And the fact they did indeed die, often in very strange circumstances, should immediately raise a red flag. I'm not going to spend any more time explaining to you or anyone else...it's really not that difficult to imagine a few ways in which they might be key witnesses.
RaySJ:
You're obviously driven by a conspiracy agenda, using tortured "logic" to arrive at a conclusion you've already accepted beforehand. So, according to your twisted thinking, my grandmother's neighbor who retired from his janitorial job at the World Trade Center just two months before 9/11 and later died while shoveling snow, would somehow qualify as a "key witness" to your half-baked conspiracy theory because of the coincidental connection between his former job and untimely death? Yeah, right!
Please try your best to avoid jury duty for the sake of our criminal justice system, where hearsay is not even permitted, and testimonials from any far-removed Tom, Dick, or Harry is considered an irrelevant distraction. Sheeeeeeeeeeesh!
You remind me of the folks who believe the US moon landing was a hoax, a Hollywood fabrication foisted upon a gullible public, when the folks who are truly gullible are the conspiracy theorists themselves.
RaySJ:
YOU WROTE: "Your ridiculous notion that they would be welcomed as heroes by a majority population that already was in love with idea of hunting down every single "jihadist" goes completely against reality."
MY RESPONSE: Then you've probably never heard of Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers whistle blower), who is widely regarded (especially by the far-left) as a national hero.
According to Wikipedia, "Daniel Ellsberg is a former United States military analyst who precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a TOP-SECRET Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War. He was later honored with the Right Livelihood Award in 2006."
So, even though Mr. Ellsberg was a temporary contributor/co-conspirator/eye-witness to some of the government's questionable decision-making regarding Vietnam, and he deliberately released TOP-SECRET information, which usually leads to automatic arrest and/or imprisonment, he achieved enduring fame and widespread public adulation. And he was even given an award, according to the quote in the previous paragraph.
Therefore, once again, your feeble argument that insiders who spill the beans won't be admired is foolish nonsense. If their revelation helps the country, rather than hurts it, then that's the deciding factor. In other words, if airing inside information to the country is immensely beneficial, then the illegal aspect of a conspirator's behavior is minimized or sometimes nearly overlooked (as in Ellsberg's case) in the eyes of the PUBLIC. You just refuse to face that reality.
But hey, it's a free country. So, you can cling to your conspiracy theory about 9/11 and continue to invent all kinds of far-fetched fantasies that support your view. Incidentally, have you contacted a psychic yet? Maybe he/she could fill in some of the missing links in your theory.
Just another govenment coverup! Hide the real truth! It doesn't whether it was 11 years ago "murder is murder" with no limitations on the murderous crimes that were commented on Sept. 11, 2001. The truth needs to come out no matter who it hurts.
the also own the Carlisle Group and half of Brown Brothers Harriman....2 Bushie legacy companies
I don't even know what to say about this, as there's so much morally wrong if it's true.
Bush was a nothing but a toadie. But Obama's knowingly keeping this information secret concerns me.
I don't care how valuable our government 'believes' the Saudis are to its interests. Thousands of Americans were murdered on 9/11/01, and responsible parties must be identified and brought to justice (and not living comfortably in London).
Sedgwick,
Let's be realistic about this...first of all, Obama was the absolute tail end of the controversy. He was the one who made sure we held to the timetable to get our troops out of Iraq. Number two; Priority, the investigation was long overwith by the time Obama became president, so in that respect, did he have an interest or any question about the Saudi connection? Probably not.
The truth of the matter is that the Bush administration concealed, not only the Saudi connection to 9/11, but also the true reasons for entering into a conflict with Iraq.
In most cases the US has comprehansive plans for invasion of nearly every country on the planet, just in case. In the case of Iraq, we had a complete plan of attack before April of 2001, a full 6 months before 9/11. It was pre-determined that the Bush Administration was going in as soon as GW bought his election. The cost of the theft of our election process was the lives of 5000 of my fellow soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen.
I continue to fail in understanding WHY Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Karl Rove are not on trial for the deaths of every American lost in Iraq.
Military Man,
I agree. My firstborn was one of those who served in the fake war that was Iraq.
But I don't think continuing to protect, and turn a blind eye toward, those who benefit from Iraq and Afghanistan -- politically, financially or with special treatment -- should be condoned
WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, no plane hit the Pentagon and where's the wreckage of Flt.93?
WTC 7 was felled by fire and a weakened substructure caused by the towers falling. There are at least 4 debris fields including debris miles away caused by Flt 93's aluminum frame hitting the ground at over 500 mph. You are simply simply used to seeing airline wreckage caused by low speed crashes. (be it take-off, landing or cruise)
Oh there are photos of plane wreckage at the Pentagon. You just have to LOOK for them.
Steel burning? I dont think so. Why is it conspiracy theory? If they had nothing to hide they would gladly pony up the answers to those questions.
Roll me one of whatever you're smokin bro!
Flight 93 hit the ground at an almost 45 degree angle traveling at 563 miles per hour! They DID find some of the plane 15 FEET embedded in the ground! The plane is made of aluminum mostly, and carrying almost 10,000 pounds of fuel. If you want to ask a dumb question like that then let me ask you one.. Why didn't anyone find even one single piece of the atomic bomb at ANY of the test sites? Duh!
Flight 93 was most certainly shot down, there is no other explanation for such widespread debris. It is likely that the plane was going to be saved by the passengers and therefore word would get out and evidence would be readily available that would shed light on the truth. My theory is that this plane was meant to be the cover for WTC7 falling down
WTC7 was demolished, period. There is absolutely no evidence that fire caused it to collapse, but we do have eye witness accounts of explosions before and during its collapse. For instance, we know for a fact that the lobby was disfigured beyond recognition by explosives. The way it fell is completely in line with controlled demolition, and any other explanation requires some serious explanation. Those who would uphold, for instance, the NIST theory have a serious burden of proof.
About the pentagon, I think it's less certain what happened there. But the fact is that there are many unexplained questions and it seems the government doesn't mind keeping people in the dark as to what happened, as it will not release much pertinent information, including the complete video of the plane crashing into the building.
It's certainly a strange coincidence that all of this occurred on a day when military drills simulating terrorist hi-jackings were being performed. It's a strange coincidence that all the air force planes that could have prevented these building collisions were hundreds of miles away (like out in the Atlantic), EXCEPT the one that shot down flight 93. It's a strange coincidence that the owner of the WTC buildings wasn't in the tower that day even though he ate breakfast there every morning (he says he just happened to have a doctor's appointment). it's a strange coincidence that the key witness to WTC7 incidents, Barry Jennings, died before he was to testify. It's a strange coincidence that 3 steel framed buildings would completely collapse on the same day, supposedly due to fire, making them the first 3 steel framed buildings to collapse from such a cause in history. It's a strange coincidence that Bush and Cheney were allowed to testify behind closed doors during the "investigation" performed by the 9/11 Commission. It's a strange coincidence that many Mossad agents were arrested that day, and subsequently released, some of which were driving suspicious vans (with explosives?) on that day claiming to be Arabs..."they're the ones you want, not us". It's a strange coincidence that they tried to appoint Henry Kissinger to oversee the 9/11 Commission's "investigation", and then after intense public pressure instead chose Philip Zelikow, another individual with a good amount of baggage and close ties to the Bush admin.
I could go on and on...but we need still do not have the TRUTH, that much is clear. Do no be afraid to ask the difficult questions. THIS IS YOUR DUTY, to THINK, the HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE, and to KNOW THE TRUTH, emphasis on KNOW there.
This article is just a tiny little piece to a time in our history that reeks to high heaven of cover up, lies, deception, witness-killing, and many more dirty deeds.
Dex, I have seen the process of making steel on shows such as "How it's Made" and I see molten, liquid steel when it is heated to a high enough temperature...that is how they formed the I-beams in the first place. So, yes, steel can burn.
time to take your medication....
Ringo-I've seen the photos (that are still available)...a piece of airframe that has NO blackening or any other signs of a high-speed impact, which also just happens to have the airlines' logo on it, "just in case"...also, an engine turbine fan that ISN'T from the plane, & a bunch of little pieces of wreckage that are non-descript & are lying conveniently on the ground near the "crash"...which also somehow didn't even make a dent in the ground in front of the Pentagon, but I guess that can also be attributed to the "high speeds" of the crash...I'm no physicist, but how does something so big, so heavy, filled with humans & hundreds of pieces of luggage, leave so little evidence? Since when does speed determine debris amount, & what about planes that collide at high speed? That fly into mountains or jungles at high-speed? And why were all of the passports from the terrorists all found just lying on the ground near the crash sites, without any burn marks, perfectly preserved for the investigators, yet almost all of the other personal effects, from hijackers or otherwise, were vaporized? It just seems to me that these 2 incidents were just as "special" as the one where the only 3 skyscrapers to ever collapse due to plane impact & fire were..hmmm...also on 9/11...
Tigerwould, if it was controlled demolitionists they were the most inept ever as it took the towers more than an hour to come down.
Danl Boone.... are you saying the results are inconsistent with the other numerous airframe into high rise building tests you have performed to develop repeatable results. ?
Dan'l and the rest of you conspiracy nuts need to stop watching all the different versions of "Loose Change." Steel does burn, anything burns at a certain temperature. Popular Mechanics magazine wrote a very good article that debunked the whole controlled demolition myth. There were remains of the victims of flight 93 recovered from the site. Loose Change makes this claim, but it was for the plane that hit the Pentagon. I personally know three people that witnessed the plane hit the Pentagon, two of whom had no connections to the Government at the time, they all told me the same thing. A large plane hit the building. The Passports from the hijackers were not recovered like you claimed. I think in one version of Loose Change they made this claim, but had to remove it in later versions.
It's interesting how so many people who frequent these boards and join these discussions "know" people who were there, or something to that effect. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Of course steel can burn, the claim is not that steel doesn't burn, it's the fact that for steel to melt it requires a temperature far above what was possible from the claimed cause(s) throughout the entire event. A much more feasible explanation is that the steel was heated due to a chemical reaction. This would also explain why they found molten steel (not just hot or warm steel) in the rubble weeks after the collapse. Sure, steel can get warm due to a fire fueled (initially) by jet fuel...but it will not stay that way for long, and it most certainly will NOT melt and cause a complete collapse, that is the most ludicrous theory I have heard yet.
The Popular Mechanics magazine used pseudo science, rigged tests, inaccurate simulations, even lies, and lacked any foundational basis in reality when they went about "debunking" the controlled demolition "myth". For that to give you a conclusive feeling is unfortunate and it shows how easy it is to brainwash people to believing something. Just feed them what they want to hear and they will buy it, they will cease asking critical questions and examining the facts.
Furthermore, many experts have not and will not buy the nonsense that Popular Mechanics put out to "debunk" any theories. So an appeal to authority/experts surely does not close the case. It is only the unbiased and unobstructed investigation into fact that will get to the bottom of this...and that has only been done by those who end up being labelled as "conspiracy theorists" or even outright "nutjobs" or "un-patriotic". The fact alone that they are labelled that by certain talking heads and popular media icons raises a red flag for me. If the truth is so simple and obvious, why not debate the facts? Why not bring out the pure and unadulterated evidence? Why resort to name-calling and character defamation?
Sorry Ray, I will chose to believe a magazine that used REAL scientific data and REAL scientists to conduct their research. I will not believe a few film makers versions that had to change every time one of their conjectures were debunked. There was not molten steel found weeks after the collapse. Even using thermite, it would not be possible for it to be liquified over weeks. Popular Mechanics did not claim that the steel melted or even burned. The heat, however did weaken it enough to fail. I don't give a crap if you believe me or not, on whether I know people who witnessed it, but I do. One of them was my soldier, who joined the Army after 9/11 and was not affiliated with the government at the time. She was a college student at the time.
This "conspiracy nut" doesn't use "Loose Change" as my source of "speculation"; I was introduced to the whole 9/11 conspiracy when it was mentioned by a close friend (who may or may not exist), who is an accomplished attorney, a hard-core Democrat, & one of the most open-minded, non-conspiratorial people you will ever meet. He simply had some colleagues who had joined with a group of other attorneys in an online petition to ask the government to re-open the 9/11 investigation, in a more "transparent" investigation, with more experts; this website is affiliated with others, including many experienced pilots, structural engineers, etc., all of whom, after looking into the "facts", haven't made a conspiracy conclusion; they just feel that there are enough inconsistencies & "sealed files" to warrant another investigation, as do I. My 'close friend' is now a District judge, & you can take that for what it's worth...
Yeah, lol, who says Loose Change is the source of any of this? I wasn't aware of the molten steel until I heard the firemen talking about it. I'm sure Loose Change has a lot of true info, and yeah, it may have some conjectures, and it may have some things that are not true as well. But let me tell you what, tens of thousands of people do not question the official story because of what Loose Change presents, it's because they've looked at the facts for themselves...and they tend to be pretty self-explanatory.
I watch a video of a random building being demolished, say an old skyscraper, and it falls straight down in the classic demolition-style. Then I watch WTC7 fall in the same exact way. WTF am I supposed to think? USE YOUR BRAIN Dave.
Popular Mechanics TWEAKED the variables to get the desired outcomes for their precious little pancake theory. You call that science? I call that PSEUDO SCIENCE...as does every scientist that is truly a scientist. If they didn't tweak the variables, they wouldn't get the desired outcome, it's cooked, the truth was twisted, deception was introduced, etc. etc...
Perhaps the steel was not liquified at the point when the firemen dug it out, but it was extremely hot, even red-hot. I'm not naive enough to believe that occurs due to a simple fire.
As Boone said, there are many individuals who simply question and use their brain, as opposed to simply watching a video, which does lead them to question the official story to the point where they truly believe a new, real investigation is required to get to the bottom of the whole ordeal. These are real, not politically affiliated, individuals who often put their entire career on the line for speaking out as they do.
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Ringo , What about WTC's 3, 4, and 5 ? They were at the base of the twin towers, alot closer than WTC 7 and all three suffered catastrophic damage but not one fell or collapsed completely. All 3 were demolished weeks after.
So then why did a building several hundred feet farther away collapse while the buildings at the base which suffered partial collapses, from falling debris mind you, still stand ?
And in the history of the construction of Steel reinforced concrete buildings only 3 (in the entire world) have ever collapsed. I'm pretty sure you know the ones.
Steel is Steel is Steel: It has design rules and it has physical properties that are changed at elevated temperatures. Steel loses much of its strength at high temperature, 1,150+F, changing the rules for the design; if there was an application for designing something at high temperatures (boilers, etc.) Buildings are designed using published rules for steel, and include fire: addressed by fire heat insulation and a building’s fire suppression systems. Building fire resistant designs do not include anything approaching lighting 250,000 gallons of aviation fuel or the energy equivalent of 2,500,000 pounds of TNT. The WTC has one very important exception, broad open floors made possible by having floor beams supported only by attachment to the outer walls. [The possibility of a pancake collapse was discussed many times in the many years after the building was designed. WTC7 for instance was designed at the upper limit for a building of its height, it beams stretched to the max, having little margin of error for compound error, or 100 of tons of additional water from figthing fires]
Poor Pedagogy: Temperature and Strength of Metals
Influence of temperature on the strength of metals
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html
There is graph of material properties, much of this information should be in ANSI B31.1 but there is a price now.
Years ago I programmed calculations power plant piping systems, that need to be designed for high temperatures, to do this we interpolated curves in 50 F increments to about 1,150 F the strength at this temperature falls sharply and there are few mild steel applications (super critical pressure boilers - Eddystone, circa 1950's) Basic engineering calculations are performed with built in safety factor of 5, meaning that if steel had a ultimate yield strength of 75,000 psi we would use 15,000 psi.
The steel used in the WTC was high strength and required careful engineering, but when heated to 1,100 - 1,200 F it begins to turn red but has less and less strength.
You can take a 3/8 - 1/2 inch steel rod, heat it red with a butane plumbers torch and bend and form it with hand strength.
While these things are burned into my memory, glancing at the 911 reports showed the eggheads at work, anyone with charcoal grill, anvil, tongs and good hammer can make a passible horse shoe. The pedagogical input in the WTC report is abysmal.
Science Experiment: Take an ordinary steel coat hanger, straighten the hook out and clamp the tip of the hook so the that rest of the hangar supports its own weight, take a butane plumbers torch heat the straighten bit the hook until is cherry red, the out stretched hangar will sag under its own weight, the steel loses most of strength at these temperatures, black smiths have taken advantage of these properties since the Iron Age, no conspiracy required.
Science Experiment: Take a tall aluminum soda (beer) can, remove both ends carefully, lightly it pack the can with #0000 steel wool from the hardware store, leaving a goodly tuft exposed, do this outdoors in low light to see the various results, do not exclude the possibility be being burnt. Suspend the can holding it with a clamp and keep it away from any combustible materials, your house, hair garage, etc. With a lighter, set the steel wool tuft a light, you may not see flames, but following the smoke (remains of oil?) and observe the color change from steel to dark gray, blow gently on it and see the sparks. At this point the steel burns from its common reduced state (Fe) to ferrous oxide (Fe-O). Now without letting this first phase die out completely, gently apply a hair dryer on no heat, at low speed setting, the steel will burn a second time assisted by the air from the hair dryer. At this point the (Fe-O) becomes Ferric oxide (Fe2-O3). Iron the ingredient in steel is found in nature only as iron oxide, which is reduced by carbon to iron (in a furnace) and contains a low amount of carbon to make what is called steel. The two higher form of oxidized iron (Fe-O) and (Fe2-O3) produced in this experiment by burning fine steel wool are also produce in the familiar fuel-oxygen torch for steel cutting, which first sets the steel alight using fuel-oxygen flame, and then applies pure oxygen that is very effective at cutting many inches of steel.
If I can do these experiments in 15 minutes so can you, if you cannot understand how written reports get written this way then understand this: Engineering reports written by commissions of mitered headed professors, do not include educational details that address general public concerns, just as glossy brochures do contain engineering details.
A simpler explanation is that good that communications includes as few details as possible and fits into a 6 minute story to narrate by a good speaking professional to communicate as little information as possible.
Simpler still it costs too much to document the rational arguments and impossible to document irrational arguments, and refute baseless facts.
Having worked eons with large organizations, they all act like large organizations, and not like at all like places were free and open dialogue can produce effective understanding or trail of documentation.
For the life of me I can't find any references to concrete reinforced skyscrapers that survived being hit by large fuel filled aircraft. But we are all familiar with the 2 that didn't.
xvet
It's all been a cover-up from the beginning, this is just one more piece coming out. It's always the same...follow the money. For anyone to believe that there was not huge money behind this is crazy, for anyone to believe there was not huge money behind our invading of Iraq is crazy.
Bruce. Read "The Paladin" it's about an English schoolboy who grew up to be Churchill's greatest weapon against Hitler.
That sounds pretty disgusting.