Proof? Do you really expect extraordinary claims to have extraordinary proof? How old-fashioned of you. Isn't it obvious that arab/muslim terrorists would never kill innocent civilians, only the CIA and Mossad are that ruthless. Don't you understand that not only 9/11 but the first WTC bombing, the african embassy bombings, Lockerbie, Bali resorts, Madrid trains, London buses, Russian theaters and schools, the Marine barracks in Lebanon - all these attacks were carried out by the CIA and Mossad, certainly not by arabs and muslims who are always too busy doing charity work. Besides only americans and jews are clever enough to blame the 9/11 attack on Saudi and Egyptian nationals in order to justify invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I'll tell you more, the riots in Paris were also run by the CIA and Mossad, in fact most of the rioters were French jews masqarading as North African muslim immigrants. This is also common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies. Don't tell anyone though, especially the French.
Just read Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right Went Wrong" The very first chapter talks about the neocon movement. They've been waiting to attack the middle east and this was their opportunity. They don't want to stop at Iraq either. They just wanted to topple a weak regime to get things rolling. They didn't think Iraq would put up this much resistance. I really wish people would open their eyes and look at what's going on instead of being told what is going on. I personally don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job but it was an opportunity to engage islam. We, as a country, have done so much damage in the middle east the last 80 years or so and Americans can't figure out why they resent us. Read up on history, read up on the neocon movement, read up on their perpetual war motive. I've voted Republican my whole life but if Ron Paul is not nominated as the Republican candidate, I will be voting 3rd party or writing his name in.
lol did "bin laden": - cause air traffic controllers to ignore published and trained procedures and to do NOTHIING while not 1 but 4 commerical jets went off course and disappeared in busy airspace? -did he arrange for an FAA supervisor to erase the tapes of the record of ATC and the pilots on that day? The mot important tape ever? (this was in the mainstream news @ the time) - did he cause NORAD to stand down - did he cause all the WTC steel to be shipped away with no investigation? - did he cause WTC 7 building to free fall collapse, while rescuers on the ground hear the demolition coutdown over a radio? - did he profit from the 2.4 trillion spent on the invasion? I hope bin laden is enjoying his CIA retirement pension...
FACT - Elvis is dead. CTers- Elvis is alive. FACT - Paul McCartney is alive. CTers- Paul is dead, it's a look-alike! FACT - WTC attacked Muslims while CLINTON in office. CTers- We believe the media when democrats are in office! FACT - WTC attacked by Muslims while BUSH in office CTers- We don't believe the media! YouTube videos made my 18 year olds hold the truth! RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY! CIA! BLAH BLAH! CTers are complete brainwashed IDIOTS who have to believe the OPPOSITE of the actual truth to make up for their less than stellar lives.
Old but good...almost disappeared down the memory hole. ------------------------- .9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon Allegations Brought to Inspectors General By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03 Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate. Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said. In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said. "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied." Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration. A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday. A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry. In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night. For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center. Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel. John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral. "My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."