FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Top Reasons Indicating an Inside Job
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6640

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:48 am    Post subject: Top Reasons Indicating an Inside Job Reply with quote

Reply to this topic with your top reasons why 9/11
was an Inside Job.


-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------

A summary of the thread will be updated here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6640

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:03 am    Post subject: Some Existing Top Reasons Lists Reply with quote

One of the most essential tasks is to select good arguments
and apply some ranking to the list. We are assuming that
this is a list aimed at a general audience not particularly
up to speed on the finer details of 9/11.

What would convince the average person?

Here are some existing Top Reason Lists:

Quote:


http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyQuestion911.html

http://globaloutlook.ca/AnomaliesList.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/31/91642/9872

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/140605tenquestions.htm

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Do you know of more Top Reasons lists?

Have you got your own Top 10 or Top 20?
Or maybe you just have a comprehensive list without ranking.

Let's have it - ranked or not.
The most compelling arguments, that will stand up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:26 am    Post subject: Number one reason... Reply with quote

I must say that if presenting to a newbie, I would have to put the existence of the 'Operation Northwoods' document forwards first.

This is firstly because it gets rid of, at a stroke, the argument that many 'normal' Wink people come out with, which is, 'Oh - they'd never do something like that!'

Also, it parallels what happened closely enough to alarm most people, plus the fact that this document exists. It's in the National Security Archive, it's not denied, it's official. I think that this gets through to a lot of people.

However, I would not. like Alex Jones, bring it forwards as *proof* of 9/11 - but as an important pointer to events that happened nearly 40 years later. I think that this is a very important distincion to make.

Secondly, I think that the newbie would have to be shown video of the collapse of WTC7. Many people are *still* not aware of this, to this day - and I think that just showing them that building collapsing is a pretty powerful piece of compelling evidence, also. (Obviously. while also pointing out that it was *not* hit by a 'plane at all, and the fact that it was over a block away from 1&2, with other closer structures didn't collapse at all.)

Thirdly, I think that I would point out the parallels between Oswald being fingered, and OBL et al., similarly being fingered immediately. Especially in the light of the Government's insistance that they knew *nothing* of such plans to 'use passenger jets as weapons', compared to the announcement in the media, practically straight after the events that OBL + his 19 elves were definately the culprits. How could they be so sure, so soon, especially in the light that they blamed the 'fact' that they were using stolen identities as a reason for them being unable to prevent this.

Fourthly, I might show them the tapes of 'fat' OBL & 'vanilla' OBL, both of which are accepted as real by the Government, as pretty much *everybody* can see that these are *not* the same people. I would also show them shrub's comments about OBL not being a 'priority' any more, Most people haven't heard about this, either, and I think that most people find this pretty shocking.

More to come.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DC

I agree. I would steer clear of Operation Northwoods as an entry-level '9/11 for Dummies' introducer.

Continuity, you said:

'...it's not denied, it's official.'

I take a different view.

If it [the Operation Northwoods document] was offically rebutted then I would consider it legitimate as 9/11 pre-conditioning at the MOST.

Just because it is on the National Security Agency archive doesn't mean it might not have been a deliberately planted distractor -- who puts stuff on/in that archive anyway?

The NSA/CIA et al, that's who [et al is Latin for 'and others' if any Amer...oh never mind].

Remember, it [the Operation Northwoods document] has been the 'meat 'n two veg' of Alex Jones and others e.g. David Icke since the get-go.

I smell, ahhhhh, Bisto!

Geddit?

Too convenient for my taste buds (I prefer real gravy).

Remember this thread?

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=310&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=northwoods%2A+fake%2A

My questions are these:

Arrow could it be that the Operation Northwoods document was engineered this-is-why-JFK-was-assassinated flak?

Arrow could it be that said document is being used to smear legitimate 9/11 investigators with the Oliver Stone-esque conspiracy theory badge?

[BTW, e.g. is Latin for exempli gratia which means 'for example', if there are any Am...]

atm Idea Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

atm said:
Quote:
if there are any Am...

Trust me - you might wanna stop that. Just a friendly thought... Smile

Quote:
I would steer clear of Operation Northwoods as an entry-level '9/11 for Dummies' introducer.

Yeah - I see what you're saying, and I'm aware of who uses this document the most out there, and what has come to pass on BFN before, but:

Here we have an *official* document, that pretty much spells out what these ruthless bastards wanted to do 40 years ago, but were nixed from carrying out. I think that the majority of 'normal' ppl find this pretty shocking. It's for the newbies, remember. Shockanawe an'all that.

How do you think that Northwoods could be used to discredit 9/11 'truth'? {curious}

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My preliminary take on it:

Possible 3i Independent International Investgation case material:

I have excluded the following aspects (for now) surrounding what happen before, on, and after 9/11-2001 because there may be a deliberate disinfo-factor attachet to it. Some aspects of may perhaps "support" a potential case, if only to prove minor details/ methodology of counter-intelligence (at a later stage):

1) Insider trading/"in your face" financial aspects (all though there are financial aspects worth adressing, my knowledge of this research is limited at this point).

2) Aspects of the Northwoods document (release, "marketing" of it, validity, focus on the US government). I would not use this as a 'first contact' proof, but maybe introduce it as a sidenote at a later point to perhaps solidify the case, as it goes to show a sinister mindset (if indeed it is as 'official' as claimed)

3) PNAC (pro-Neoconservative focus).

4) "Whistleblowers". There is always a "trap" attached to whistleblowers, things that at a later date (during a case) will discrdit them. When a real case ois up and running, real witnesses and suppoenaed witnesses will strengthen the case.

5) Mock-trials like the Moussaoui-trial. (this is a distraction, but must be countered at one point during the process of establishing a case).

6) Aspects of building 7. The collapse itself may be used as proof of funny business, as well as the financial aspects concerning documents pertaining to ongoing investigations. In my mind it is very much in our faces, so to speak, as it adds to the information overload and spreads the focus of the researches (much like having the "attacks" happening at many locations). It's like their saying; "Now here's something for you to investigate!" Focusing on the collapse itself, the time of the collapse and certain aspects of what was in the building is more than enough.

7) Documents pertaining to the WTC-complex being "the best built structure" of it's kind and having had upgrades. (plausible deniability) This will be used to counter claims of deliberate demolition, and must be addressed at a later stage.

8 ) Mohamed Atta. This patsy is the "conspiratorial" aspect of the official story, and the lead character in the screnplay of 9/11. The inconsistencies surrounding this man is definitively worth addressing, if only to prove how utterly ludicrus the official story is as to him and the "highjackers" in general, but he is definitively put out there for us to focus on (in more ways than claimed to begin with).

9) Money transfers to Atta (and others?) from Pakistani intelligence (via middle men). Pakistani intelligence (and the Mossad) could have been instrumental in providing parts of the story/ "proof" to support official claims/ and throw off an investigation into 9/11. They certainly knew/know the Mujahedeen/Al Quida story just as well as Al Bzigniew. I also know far too little about this part of the tory to ask the best questions. I refer to Gary (dilbert_g) in the BFN forum in this regard.

10) Cheering Israelis. Intended to "move" the investigation in yet another direction (pun intended).

11) +++

A few general points about proving the case from the top of my head:

Pre-9/11-2001:

1) The creation of Al Quida.

2 a) The history of intelligence involvement in terror acts.
2 b) Post cold war vacume vs. military spending (desire for a "new world order").

3) Pre-existing plans for pre-emtive attack against other countries/ pre-existing documents supporting what would follow the desire for that (Patriot Act).

4) Refusal to take low-level intelligence warnings seriously (even if deliberate "intelligence" probably was inserted/ "leaked" for them to pick up on.) This would take the focus off real international intelligence knowleged and involvment, and set up the scenario for people to focus on the US government.

5) Evacuations, powerdowns, warnings not to fly, changes in command for 9/11 (Pentagon), senior officials being out of Washington on that day, removal of bomb-snifing dogs, pluss other changes made before 9/11.

6) +++

On 9/11-2001:

1) The nature of the collapses (WTC 1,2 and 7 vs. 3, 4, 5 and 6).

2) Knowledge of imminent collapse. (?)

3) Numerous reports of explosions well below impact zone. (testemony + visuals), also potential traces of explosives.

4) Mineta's testimony regarding Cheney (perhaps).

5) "Highjacker" navigation from point of highjack to Washington and NY, and certain flight maneuvers.

6) What happened to Pentagons defence system.

7) Exercises taking place that day/ Flight responce time/ Normal procedures vs. what happened at 9/11/ [pre-9/11:] Possibly funding, procurement and NGO and private interests involvement as it relates to the exercises/ technology. (needs more research)

8 ) +++

Post-9/11-2001:

1) Removal of evidence from a crime scene/ Unwillingness or inability to stop this removal from happeneing (impeachable offence).

2) Unwillingness to investigate 9/11 and the commissions failure to address key point od what happened that day.

3) The conflict of interest of key people in the 9/11 commission.

4) The rapidity with which the identity of the highjackers was established/ why and how they were identified + changing passenger lists with none of them on the manfestos (even though Betty Ong mentined the seat number where at lest one of the "highjackers" sat)

5) Unwillingness to provide evidence for "muslim fanatic" involvement, or anything else for that matter.

6) Unwillingness to release statements, photos, audio and video to prove their case or inform us of what happend that day (pentagon, FAA, Norad, White House, in the towers, on the planes, etc) Some has been released, but only under great pressure and far from everything.

7) Fake Osama confession videos/ Osama claiming to have had nothing to do with 9/11 to a Pakistani journalist (this could be an orchestrated thing to be proven to be false at a later date).

8 ) +++

I still have far too much info in my head that I need to digest, and I know that there are things I have left out, and possibly included things that may be dubvious.

Never the less... Arrow

-DL- Question

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll have to give this some time to flesh out and read all yours, and I'm too tired now. (I read somewhere, true or false, that Bamford was distancing himself from Northwoods, based on that some of the language was more "British" than "America". Students "on holiday", etc. Suggestion was "it was planted".
As it was a prelim. memo anyhow, what difference? Maybe some Brit guy was taking notes.)


BUT
here's one thing I was passing out to people, even a flunkie ex-Senator
I'd probably revise it by putting "Who created Al-Qaeda?" on top

TOP TWELVE QUIZ

1) Does any evidence exist to show that our government would ever even consider sacrificing it's own citizens and lying about it, to achieve narrow, selfish policy objectives? In other words, is there any reason to believe that our own govt. could ever a stage "False-Flag" act of terrorism to frighten us into submission, to promote a War agenda?

2) Has our government ever done this before, CREATED TERRORISM to blame it on new enemies? What was the Strategy of Tension? What was Operation Gladio?

3) WHO FOUNDED AL-QAEDA and WHY? Most people assume that Al-Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden. This is flatly untrue. (see below)

4) How much MONEY did American taxpayers spend to create Al-Qaeda?

5) What Lawyer blocked a civil suit brought by Widows from 9-11 families, for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, by getting "diplomatic immunity" for Saudi royalty, against legal inquiry into it's accounts? (Some Leftist trial lawyer? Ramsey Clark?)

6) What Fed. Prosecutor stepped out of their regular career to defend an accused Al-Qaeda money-launderer (who "lost" $6M from his taxpayer-supported slush fund)?

7) Who said "Let Bin Laden go free"? (Some liberal actress? Barbra Streisand, perhaps? Sean Penn? Dennis Kucinich? Cindy Sheehan?)


8] Who was nailed for insider trading on 9-11, betting 600 times over normal against Merrill Lynch, and against American and United (but not other airlines), etc.? In other words, what investors had specific advance knowledge of 9-11?

9) Which Govt Official collaborated with a man whom FBI confirmed as the Terrorist Moneyman behind Sept 11, who sent $109,000 to Mohamed Atta (alleged hijackers) in Florida? ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING QUESTIONS.

10) Under which Presidents did the Pentagon and CIA run joint operations with Al-Qaeda? Is there ANY evidence for ongoing US-Al-Qaeda relations?

11) What was the most common line of work the "terrorists" and "hijackers" performed in recent decades?

12) How quickly must have the separation have occurred for each (undamaged) floor strained and interlocking steel trusses to break from outside vertical structures and 47 steel center columns (forming a "hollow" center) for the South Tower to have collapsed in less than 10 seconds? What did they DO with the EVIDENCE, all the steel that melted from exposure to a black smoke kerosene "campfire"?

~~~~~ muzak plays ~~~~~ Ready contestants?
detailed answers on my home page www.takeoverworld.info
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
ok to stop here, you probably know the answers. I tried to think of what I would be moved by if I knew NOTHING.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

ANSWERS: (are these forests or merely trees of coincidence?)

described as LEVELS of EVIDENCE - "what does this fact prove?"


1) James Bamford (video) author of "Body of Secrets" on the history of the NSA, speaking on his discovery of Operation Northwoods. He found the 1962 Northwoods memo in U.S. National Security Archives. internal LINK

This preliminary plan described a variety of scenarios by which covert operations could stage terror attacks on Miami and Washington, DC, actually killing people, and attack our military troops, stage a fake shootdown of a commercial jet, in order to blame a country which Generals wanted to attack -- Cuba, create a "helpful wave of public indignation" . This would move the American public towards their plans to launch a war, very likely nuclear war. Some attacks would be faked, some would include real deaths.

If John Glenn crashed, they were going to fake some radio receptions to blame that on Cuba, but there was no written evidence of planning to sabotage John Glenn.

LIHOP was tried first, per other memos, but Operation Mongoose could not get Cuba to attack US warplane "heckler" overflights. Cuba only protested.

So, General Lyman Lemnitzer, all the Joint Chiefs and Intelligence signed off on Northwoods, were extremely eager to proceed, and extremely pissed (per details from memos in Body of Secrets) when Kennedy/McNamara blocked them. This is 100% confirmed. Let's be clear:

Taken alone, this only proves intent, means, and motive, not 9-11. This is indisputable evidence which completely trashes the theory that "our govt would never do such a thing". It's Evidence of character and motivation. Our military elites would, could, wanted terribly to KILL AMERICANS and start doing it quickly, to launch a war on false pretense, because initial efforts provoke Cuba to fire US spyplanes and provocations generated protests instead of shots fired. (America has committed covert acts of terror on Cuba for 50 years.)


The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is officially confirmed as a flat out LIE which led to the ground war in Vietnam. Despite open provocations from USA, hoping to draw a response from N. Vietnam, no torpedos were ever fired at a US ship. Johnson knew the radar report was a "false alarm" but kept the lie anyhow. Sec Def. McNamara acknowledged this. Ray McGovern of CIA describes Tonkin as a "lie of convenience" -- it popped up -- versus Iraq War, a total lie machine, distinguished by degrees of deception. Was Tonkin a "little white lie"? The lie killed tens of thousands of Americans, 3-4 million Asians, plus massive unrest and dischord, domestic fighting, police beatings raids, shootings, Kent State, Jackson State, grief, anger, suicides, social violence, massive inflation ... incomprehensible chain of events ... due to a desire to escalate war and to control Nam's natural resources, like tin, tungsten, and rubber.
More evidence of depravity and willingness to kill for profit.

Other examples include fake hysteria over the Maine, hundreds of US citizens sacrficed to the Japanese in the Phillipines for propaganda value, "engineered foreign attacks" preceding World Wars 1 and 2, plus fake "threats" like Grenada, Nicaragua, and dozens more, imperial conquest on any good excuse. They don't teach this history in school, but it's all verifiable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Strategy of Tension was the concept behind a four-decades-long project of bombing civilians in Europe, markets, movies, etc, to BLAME terrorism on Left Wing political parties to prevent them from winning elections. Joint intelligence op of CIA, Italian neo-Fascists, Italian Mafia, British MI6, etc. FDR even released Lucky Luciani (Mafia) from prison to help. Later named Operation Gladio. It's real and documented by Italian President, Italian courts, and other "found" documentation of the Pentagon itself!! Go to www.Takeoverworld.info/false-flag.html
Documented worse evidence of depravity, violence, and murder ... plus similar motive.

They did not merely plan this, they actually DID sabotage and terrorism, to discredit and imprison "enemies" of big capitalist forces behind the CIA --- legal communist and socialist political parties running for elections. They killed and maimed innocent Italians to promote fear. (They've done it to American intelligence and military who knew too much.) Would they do it to American civilians?
DEEP BLACK LIES website

MUST HEAR:
Strategy_of_Tension_Operation_Gladio.mp3

The 1993 WTC attack was entirely run by FBI from start to finish, including the choice of explosives. The only thing the convicted "terrorists" did by themselves was actually park the truck, and they screwed that up. This came out in court and in the NYT. See internal link to my site. This is STUNNING. www.Takeoverworld.info/index.html#1993-Schoenman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Most people believe that Al-Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden. A-Q founder is former National Security Adviser (under Jimmy Carter), member of Council on Foreign Relations, co-founder of globalist outfit at www.trilateral.org along with David Rockefeller (and Kissinger) -- Al-Qaeda was founded by British-American, Zbignew Brzezinski. He's not even slightly Arab. "God is on your side" speech to Mujahideen (1 min Real Video) alt site


One of our local liberal politicians said "It was a different Al-Qaeda back then."
A different Al-Qaeda?!!


Details: www.Takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_note.html

Of course the CIA did the hands-on work. Intelligence is the Globalists' private army, which they created when their Hitler Project ended. And Zbig got help from Pakistan ISI Intelligence, and from the Saudis. Not to fight off Soviet aggression. Clever crafty Mr. Zbig brags that he unleashed Radical Islamic Brigades to provoke a Soviet response + invasion. "Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea."
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html Stirring The Hornet's Nest Of Islamic Unrest
CLEAR EVIDENCE OF DIRECT INVOLVEMENT with terrorism. Say what you want, THEY BUILT IT. Someone who builds a meth lab is as guilty as others caught using it.

Many ordinary people already know "we" founded Al-Qaeda ... so they accept the 2nd-level dis-info, the other official story: Al-Qaeda emerged from a "good" CIA project -- a defensive response to Soviet aggression. Our terrorists went against us -- BLOWBACK. Blowback out my ass!!
This is also "Honest Mistake theory". Closely related to the "incompetent President and CIA theory". This is fiction too.
(How incompetent could they be? They've amassed incredible power and cash in a few years. Can you fill up your bank acct and stock portfolio as fast as Cheney? Jerry Lewis made his life's fortune playing an idiot. Jim Carrey starred in "Dumb and Dumber". Think they're really dumb?)

Most people believe that the US relationship with Al-Qaida certainly must have ended with the Cold War thaw. Kill the golden goose? Are you kidding?
When did we stop funding the Al-Qaeda Project? hmmm ... It's covert!
"I used to love her, but it's all over now." - Mick Jagger
HERE's an answer: See CHECHNYA.

Fake Al Qaeda - Zacarias Moussaoui fought for the CIA in Chechnya ... CIA reins in loose cannons, and keeps their Al Qaeda creation alive and well ... Al-Zarqawi Video Is A Pentagon Propaganda Psy-Op -WaPo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) American taxpayers spent officially $6 billion, to create and fund the Al-Qaeda Project. Between 1980 and 1989, CIA poured in some $6 billion (more realistic estimates go as high as $20-30 bn), established an extensive network of madrassas (Jihadist schools known as CIA-U) --- with jihad books by Univ of Nebraska and edu software from Neil Bush --- to recruit, indoctrinate, feed, train, arm, and create psychotic Islamics. Saudi Arabia matched the US, dollar-for-dollar. Wealthy Arabs poured in millions. Egypt and China donated more. Plus profits from heroin sales laundered through German banking system and BCCI (equiv to "Al-Qaeda International Bank of Pakistan", busted in 80's CIA scandal, "not so much a bank as an intelligence org, plus arms, narcotics, and capital flows").
Americans paid the annual salary of every Taliban official in the late 90's, spending $6 billion more to create the Taliban govt so Unocal might put in a pipeline.
"explicit aim of promoting radical Islam" = US foreign policy (and that's a quote)

Our Air Force bombed our own CIA training bases in Afghanistan, where we trained our Jihadists. The Taliban govt who was "harboring" Osama Bin Laden was installed by our Globalist leaders, in our Al-Qaeda-infested Kabul.

Al-Qaeda is a TWENTY-FIVE-YEAR-OLD project/ clandestine operation, which continues even now, clandestinely, as it was in 1978 before Jimmy Carter went public with these 'freedom fighters'. Al-Qaeda unleashed mayhem and death on Afghani civilians, esp women, and also on Yugoslav civilians, moderate Chechnya civilians, elsewhere.

ACPC is an organization, presently working to develop "peace in the Caucasus". ACPC is an NGO run by former govt officials who developed Al-Qaeda.

Spin 1: Once upon a time, a long time ago, BCCI tricked us. www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22303-2002Feb16?
Spin 2: John Kerry, hero who had to fight Bush on BCCI. www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html
NO spin: "... invariably turned out to be working for the CIA." http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q4.html
Lots of Details http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Al_Qaeda
How the CIA created Osama bin Laden - www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm
Excellent amusing article on CFR groups: www.lewrockwell.com/north/north321.html
Don't forget fake Al-Qaeda groups such as one created by Shin Bet (Israeli secret svc) in Gaza, as reported in Ha'Aretz and WhatReallyHappened

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) On a civil lawsuit in 2002 over "terrorist charity donations", brought by 9-11 widows, Saudis were defended by "prestigious Houston-based Baker-Botts Law Firm", a.k.a. James A. Baker III --- Bush family attorney for four decades. Some strong appearance of complicity for Bush's lawyer to try and succeed at getting the "Al-Qaeda lawsuit" dismissed, on the dubious basis of "diplomatic immunity" against being sued by American citizens, before "discovery" of evidence could proceed.
Baker harkens back to the 60's when Bush's Zapata Petroleum was a front for CIA's Operation 40, aimed at overthrowing Castro, and escalating the Cuban Missile Crisis. Baker's firm gave W his first job. Baker also harkens back to Harken Energy, Bush Jr's oil company funded by a Binladen. (google Baker+Saudi and "It's a Baker-Botts World") www.Takeoverworld.info/bakerbotts.html Evidence of post-Sept 11 complicity with Al-Qaeda at highest levels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Michael Chertoff jumped up from his cushy chair at Fed prosecutor's office to defend a small potatoes Egyptian doctor who stood accused of financing Osama. He was also running a project called Green Quest to trace terrorist financing. For a 1 month overlap he was doing both. Chertoff became head of DHS after Tom Ridge.
Chertoff rose rapidly to Fed Prosecutor, joined Ken Starr on Clinton prosecution. Dr. Elamir, from Egypt, was charged with stealing $15 million from New Jersey. He was also accused wiring nearly $6 million to Osama (or someone), laundered thru his HMO. Chertoff broke away from his plush Fed gig to serve as lead defense attorney. The charges were dropped, Doctor went free, plus Doctor got to keep the "misallocated" funds.

Bush then promoted Chertoff to run Homeland Security.
On what qualifications was the doctor given 44,000 patient accounts? On what qualifications was Chertoff promoted?
MORE Evidence of post-Sept 11 complicity with Al-Qaeda at highest levels.
www.Takeoverworld.info/index.html#Chertoff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Amnesty for Osama Bin Laden proposed by former CIA Executive Director A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard. Krongard was also past director of Deutschebank/A.B. Brown, handling "special accounts" for super rich. See ( 8 ) for parallel role of A.B. Brown and Deutschebank.
neocon article: World Net Daily www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42303
and www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431539,00.html

Ironically, while WE give up privacy, FBI blocked a Freedom of Info Act (FOIA) request by claiming "privacy rights" for Osama. www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5286.shtml

So, Amnesty plus privacy for Osama Bin Laden, protected by the US govt. Total Secrecy for the Govt. Complete destruction of privacy for American citizens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8] For Insider Trading before 9-11, NOBODY was busted because there was NO INVESTIGATION. It was in the news -- briefly -- bet it slipped your mind. Neither Congress nor the Executive pursued an investigation into 9-11 financial speculation, despite their sole exclusive right and power to investigate private trades, and ability to see such info via a "real time" financial tracking system, within Eschelon and Promis database software. Some say Osama also got Promis software from the USA, with the power to get into the back door of our secure networks, like some Russian hackers did. (google "Profits of Death", see "Insider trading" story)

Ironically, Deutschebank -- where Krongard (#7) was past CEO --- had laundered heroin profits for CIA, Al-Qaeda, Pakistan, AND Deutschebank handled most of the 9-11 stock market "bets" on losses. MORE www.Takeoverworld.info/profits.html

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

9) Trick question, a whole bunch of people collaborated with the "terrorist moneyman", from Sept 4-13.
Secretary of State Colin Powell (12-13 Sept)
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (12-13 Sept)
Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman (before 11 Sept)
CIA Director George Tenet (before 11 Sept)
Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee (11 Sept)
Senator John Kyl, member of the Senate Intelligence committee (11 Sept)
Repr Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (11 Sept) (became CIA Dir for a year)

Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee (13 Sept)
Timeline:
CIA chief Tenet is on secret mission to India in August. He also meets heads of Pakistan, possibly joined by Senate and House Intelliegence leaders.
Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, Intelligence Dir of Pakistan ISI, wires funds to Venice, Florida, for the "mastermind" Mohamed Atta. Next, Ahmad flies to Washington. (Maybe even on same plane as US officials. But it's a SECRET. Shhh.)

One Senator and one House member, both heads of respective Foreign Intelligence Committees, roll out the red carpet for man soon to be known as "the Al-Qaeda moneyman".
Sen. Bob Graham. Democrat. Of Florida.
Repr. Porter Goss. Republican. Of Florida.

Next, Masood, head of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan (who also warned us of 9-11) is assassinated. Blown up on Sept 10. Most likely by Pakistan-based Al-Qaeda. Who we control. Who sponsored Al-Qaeda for 20+ years.
Next - SEPTEMBER 11. While planes are flying into buildings, Ahmad is enjoying breakfast with top White House Officials. Watching TV? Fox? CNN?
A few weeks later, India uncovers this $109,000 transfer. It is reported in the press: Times of India, not US media. FBI confirms it. Quietly. Condi tells reporter she knows nothing.

(THIS AL-QAEDA FINANCING THING and MOHAMED ATTA ISSUE ITSELF MAY BE A RED HERRING, AS IT TIES INTO THE GOVT'S OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY that "Al-Qaeda" and "Mohamed Atta" actually pulled off 9-11, where he may just be either an agent of the US, a pasty, or something else.)

www.Takeoverworld.info/index.html#terrorists

Odd coincidence #535: Governor, code-named Bush, also of Florida, quietly orders martial law a few days before Sept 11.



Porter Goss exonerates himself and the administration, of any smoking guns around the issue of him eating breakfast with an Al-Qaeda financier on Sept 11, or other issues.
Goss says it is "nonsense" and "foolishness" to ask questions.
Ashcroft says its TREASONOUS to ask foolish questions, which aids the terrorists. So don't ask.

Was Goss fired? NO, Goss got a promotion to the Director of Central Intelligence. He received new funds to "fight terrorism". (But don't worry, Goss is working on ridding CIA of "non-compliant" staff. Maybe that means purging anyone who fails to block investigations and maintain secrecy.)

It's not fair to single out Goss: EVERY TOP INTELLIGENCE and COUNTER-TERRORISM OFFICIAL met with Gen. Ahmed from Sept 4 thru 13 --- Armitage, Goss, Graham, Tenet, Powell, John Kyl, Marc Grossman ... all of them!!! Plus Joe Biden, Democrat. Most likely, Cheney and Condi too. (No surprise if Clintons even met him for a quickie.)

Tenet went to India and Islamabad, Pakistan before Sept, ... the money was wired after his visit. I think THAT FACT ALONE -- or this paragraph -- or combined with the fact that Paki Intell is like a subcontractor working for CIA -- is sufficient for an indictment. Lawyers? Is that correct?


www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html STRONGEST evidence of direct complicity and coverup. Almost certainly, accessory before the fact, unless Intelligence was unaware of what their puppet was doing.


Why do we even ALLOW our employees to run secret missions behind our backs?


Our "Intelligence" is a terrorist MAFIA. CIA began as a Nazi-lovin' mafia, and they will kill Americans who interfere with their interests, even a President, a veteran, or a DEA officer.



also Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) illegally (Logan Act) acted as a private agent acting on behalf of the USA, when he tramped through the mountains with Taliban warlords working out "oil deals". He recommended the Taliban to Congress as a stable non-terrorist humanitarian government. "Taliban are devout traditionalists, not terrorists or revolutionaries", said Dana. www.ocweekly.com/the-news/news/mr.-taliban_2003-12-25.html MORE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10) Presidents associated with Al-Qaeda: ALL RECENT ONES.
Carter, obviously, Tri-Lateral member who agreed to launch and fund Islamic Brigades, for Brzezinski, a.k.a. Al-Qaeda.
Reagan, continued Carter's policies on these "freedom fighters" like Abdul Haq. Rotten.com has more. Taliban sends wreath to Reagan Funeral (satire, I think)

Bush, because he really ran the Reagan White House, and because Iran-Contra and BCCI were also Al-Qaeda funding ops. (FBI Dir Robert Mueller was heavily criticized for his role in the BCCI investigation, including by the Wall St. Journal.)
Clinton, spent $6 billion founding the Taliban Government, and Clinton's NATO action against the Serbs to break up Yugoslavia was allied with the *known terrorist (photo) and drug running* Kosovo Liberation Army - a branch of Al-Qaeda (and with the Ustashi Nazis). For some period under Clinton, Americans paid the entire yearly salary of every Taliban official.
Bush, for continued support of the KLA-NLA terrorists in Macedonia ... and Chechnya ... and for using Al-Qaida to "gut" NYC and democracy in America.
Actually, it doesn't matter which Presidents --- Al-Qaeda is covertly supported by Pentagon and CIA, or at least factions within, which exclusively serve Global Finance Capitalist Imperialism (Tri-Lateral, CFR). NOT "America", per se, except to the point that "America" is now equal to "the Global Finance Capital Cabal" and not the flawed-but-republican "America" of 1776.)

Kurt Nimmo describes CHECHNYA today. The most powerful group there is not Al-Qaeda, but ACPC, a "non-govt. org (tax-free NGO) , that includes Brzezinski (founder of Al-Qaeda). This is the heart of neo-con and neo-liberal capitalism, tied to Exxon, Enron, and the Carlysle Group, looking to expand influence, build pipelines, and checkmate Russia. ACPC is currently (NOW!) working with Islamic terrorists in Chechnya ... to promote "peace". Fortunately for Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" scheme, there is more violence than peace, continuing to destabilize Russia. In other words, everything's copacetic (satisfactory).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11) Employment: Many of the top terrorist "celebrities" from 1993 to 2001 were CIA contract employees, trainees at US Mil bases, or otherwise got a paycheck from Uncle Sam or Mil contractors like Vinnell. Check this: www.Takeoverworld.info/false-flag.html and scroll half-way down for names

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12) First, a brief recap of other physical evidence anomalies, which are un-explainable:
the "hollow" core in the WTC consists of 47 steel beams, set in a box or circle; 80% of the floors and contents were reduced to the consistency of baby powder, not by gravity; there were 4 consecutive hijackings with no intercept despite mandatory procedures, consider the cumulative odds; Flight 77 could not have done the 270 turn plus 7000' drop, and if it could, Hani Hanjour could not have flown it after 3 lessons; WTC 7 could not have fallen from fire.

The complete collapse should have taken minimum 96 seconds, at an incredible 1-sec-per-floor. At impossible 0.5-sec-per-floor, 45 seconds. For 10-sec collapse of Tower 1, each floor must have busted loose from its trusses in max 0.125 seconds (1/8-second or less) per floor, in perfect symmetrical separation. Even Elmer's glue and cardboard would have provided more resistance to free fall. Flat out lies, substantiated by mainstream investigators.

The fires in the Towers were throwing smoldering black smoke. This was not a blast furnace fed with pressurized oxygen, at 1800F. If it had been, would this woman waving in the WTC gash not be roasted? (I think 2000F is the correct temp. at which steel melts. If it melted at 600, your oven would get soft when you broil.)

The crime scene -- steel beam fragments, 30-foot segments -- was loaded on trucks and carted off as scrap to be melted down in China ... turned into "paperclips and ashtrays" ... BEFORE forensic investigators could study it. Mayor Bloomberg said computer modeling could substitute for missing crime scene evidence. Nothing to see here. In contrast to the $40 million we paid to survey Monica's underwear, we spent $600,000 on the WTC, and used volunteers. Yep, the WTC investigation was staged like a soup kitchen.

Even FDNY firefighters were barred from site, and physically fought with police. Several companies awarded contracts to haul away scrap. Controlled Demolition hauled away both Murrah Bldg scrap and WTC scrap. Trucks were equipped with $10,000 GPS systems, and a special pier was built, making this some of the most expensive garbage on the planet. More evidence of concealment.
Ground Zero coverup www.911review.com/coverup/groundzero.html
Back to top
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting, Gary! I will have to take time to digest your info, and generally what I've found on www.takeoverworld.info Exclamation You should post parts of this (and perhaps more?) in 'The true nature of Al Quida' section of the 3i analysis to get everything in it's proper place... Wink

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do plan to redo parts of this post, but I'd like to keep the political info together, and since I do not exactly know the true nature of Al-Qaeda, I will post what I DO know. But rather than chronological order (how far back to go?), I'll start with the creation of Al-Qaeda, which I think seems to be THE most important starter fact.
Back to top
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:17 pm    Post subject: FIRST QUESTION Reply with quote

I may edit this more, but I think I've finally honed my "Introduction" on my website to the single most glaring point. THEY ADMITTED IT. I firmly believe this MUST be the first point of any line of questioning.

ALL discussions about Al-Qaeda are conspiracy theories, because by even conventional defintion, Al-Qaeda is a group of conspirators and Sept 11 was a conspiracy. A group of men got together to plot a crime. An exception to the "theory" part might be where specific facts are stated. But TWO CENTRAL FACTS are glaring by their near-total omission.

One: The factual Al-Qaeda connection to National Security, the admitted role of the former National Security Advisor and CIA in creating Al-Qaeda, this fact is never (or rarely) mentioned at all, when discussing Sept 11 or the War on Terror.

In all the incessant, repetitive harping and fearmongering (suspended only by "tabloid" hysteria about "scandals" like a "runaway bride" and JonBonet Ramsey when some important legislation needs to be hidden), this discussion about how Al-Qaeda was born and nurtured is virtually absent from public consideration. We are changing the entire world, and chasing these "monsters and ghosts" everywhere, committing mass murder on Arabs, shaking in our boots, planning for Armageddon --- and when was the last time you heard even a regretful peep about the fact that Al-Qaeda was "Made by America"? (flashback: so were the Nazis and apparently the Bolsheviks too) What can we call this other than "BIZARRE"? (ans: criminal)

Two: Not just the creation of Al-Qaeda -- that would be bad enough -- but documented ONGOING support for Al-Qaeda includes joint military operations and covert operations through five administrations at a cost of some $6 billion to $20 billion. That almost certainly includes the current administration (according to the leader of Macedonia). The Iran-Contra scandal (which funded the mujahideen), the BCCI scandal (Al-Qaeda "bank"), and the (suppressed) Senate Republican Kosovo report on Clinton covers the previous three admins' Al-Qaeda Project.

That the birth of Al-Qaeda on July 3, 1979 (six months before the "Soviet invasion") by "Poppa" Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter is NEVER mentioned in all the "information overload" is a glaring clue that some serious dirt is being intentionally hidden from the masses. The reality: these facts are only the "the tip of the iceberg".


(Opening Act of this GWOT actually occurred in Feb 1993 at the WTC, in an operation proven to be 99% FBI and 1% DOOFY Arab terrorist-wannabees. Opening Act of the Cold-War-morphing-to-Arab-War was false-flag 1967 attack on USS Liberty by Israel, meant to be blamed on Egypt a.k.a. the USSR. The Cold War itself was a psyop, since it is documented that NYC bankers financed Bolsheviks, and even George Kennan regreted "starting" the Cold War hysteria. Every time Bush talks about "appeasing Hitler" with regards to Iraq, I recall that his family and business associates literally funded Hitler and approved of his Eugenics program weeding out "bad populations".)

The reason these facts are important (must state this for noobs) is our entire foreign and domestic policy of the US (World) is currently chained to "Al-Qaeda", a major "foreign" criminal conspiracy, and will remain so for the forseeable future. A fair prediction is that this will change the course of American history and World history for the next 500 years at least (Bush, Cheney, and Rummy say "for our lifetimes), by rapidly bringing an end to even the pretense of Constitutional law
... to be replaced step-by-step with a Military Police State, Martial Law, the creation and expansion of new global military and police forces, constant war, constant surveillance and tracking of every citizen, unwarranted intrusion, secret arrests, inalienable rights -- such as security in our persons, homes, papers and possessions -- violated, our guarantees of legal procedures -- including a fair trial, defense lawyer, requirements of evidence -- cast aside --- all this and more may be suspended on the word of a few appointed executive authority figures, with new secrecy protections replacing govt transparency, and open season on dissident critics ...
and we can't talk about Al-Qaeda? Nearly all references to the factual birth of the Al-Qaeda conspiracy within National Security and Intelligence are off-limits for all practical purposes. How ridiculous is THAT?!!

Serious questions about such matters are dismissed in a disingenuous manner on mainstream media, unless they accidentally slip by censors, as if any inquiry into the birth of Al-Qaeda is irrelevant and inconsequential. Can you imagine another criminal conspiracy where such things as the roots of the crime and a thorough investigation are deemed irrelevant, to be replaced by vapid slogans and mindless (but carefully crafted) assertions of near-mythological "evil"?


(Actually, yes. Connections between Manson family main killer Charles "Tex" Watson and a top Republican Party organizer/lawyer, the Manson group's use of military tactics in their crimes, all this and more was ignored in favor of the "LSD, brainwashing, magnetic personality" story. Likewise, convenient mythologies of unexplainable evil were concocted for Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley, even Adolf Hitler, all outside of context with surrounding circumstances and ties to US Intelligence and Money which ran through each case.)


Not just the creation of Al-Qaeda -- that would be bad enough -- but the documented ONGOING covert support for Al-Qaeda including joint military operations through five administrations. That almost certainly includes the current administration. Iran-Contra, BCCI, and the (suppressed) Republican Kosovo report on Clinton cover the previous three admins.

These facts and related facts about Al-Qaeda point to what I must call "unanswerable questions". The "authorities" MUST "take the Fifth" or fall back on "National Security" as an excuse for "Omerta" (law of silence), because the only reasonable answer which is non-contradictory is "complicity".

This should not be a surprise to us, those who can read, because Brzezinski and others were fairly explicit when they TOLD us in advance of their intentions to RUN America and "manage" democracy through the use of lies, manipulation, and fear.

CHANGING AMERICA and changing the WORLD is the WHOLE POINT OF THIS EXERCISE. The rulers literally STATED in books and articles published before 9-11 that this "War on Terror" was necessary for their plans for world domination and imperialism. Afterwards, while most media and pundits were hyping the fear and grief, a few articles and statements brazenly discussed the events in terms of "opportunity" and "good luck".

It is now well-known that Donald Rumsfeld discussed "attacking Iraq" in terms of "opportunity" arising off Sept 11, and many people consider that simply crass and sickening. Others may consider it "visionary and pro-active". But what's missing is that these criminals DID NOT SUDDENLY see "opportunity". They wrote about it years in advance. Did they get "lucky" ... or did they create their luck? Why is no one asking?

"Lucky" is not my metaphor. It's an adjective used by Ledeen in an official PNAC publication to describe Pearl Harbor. Brzezinski's book repeatedly expresses "hope" for similar terror events on that scale of destruction and outrage and horror.

In normal police detective work, a person who takes a "LUCKY" action in advance of a suspicious crime, like taking out a large insurance policy on someone before their mysterious death, that person is labelled a "suspect" ... for obvious reasons ... and a thorough investigation is launched to see if there is more evidence to connect the suspect to the crime, beyond one lucky coincidence.

In the case of Sept 11, the crime scene is crammed with verifiable and fairly unambigous evidence of complicity, but no investigation has occurred. Intelligent and obvious questions are avoided ... like herpes.
(The Sept 11 Commission was assigned to look for "intelligence failures", not "complicity", and the "lead investigators" are known to have been operating within the same circles as the suspects -- oil, narcotics, fraud, insider deals, and other criminality. They're partners.)

These premoniscient (future-telling) statements and plans of PNAC and the Tri-Lateral Commission should have been the hottest topic of intelligent debate, discussion, controversy, all in context rather than isolated. Questions which are begging to be asked, are never asked, so the pretension is maintained that it was merely their "good fortune" that Sept 11 conveniently occurred at just the perfect moment to coincide with their grand schemes to reshape the world to suit global corporate and financial neo-colonial interests.

ALL our news media personnel are not so utterly stupid or illiterate that they could FAIL to recognize motive, nor so clueless as to be unable to add means and opportunity to the motive. This commitment to avoiding-the-obvious and dancing around it can only be called "intentional".

When a person under interrogation continually dodges serious questions and changes the subject, the average person KNOWS what this means -- subterfuge, LYING and GUILT.

THEY KNEW IN ADVANCE THEY'D HAVE TO LIE ABOUT IT. The whole point was to freak people out, to TERRIFY.
TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT A PSYOP (psych operation) RUINS THE DECEPTION, as well as ruining the plan.
Simple facts could and should result in public hangings.

(Unfortunately, most of the "underground" ALSO treats these issues superficially or incoherently as well, even treating "official leaks" which are more distraction as if they are genuine "clues".)
Hidden-but-openly-documented evidence is of US covert/overt support for Al-Qaeda and their cousins for 25 years, NOT just the Bush presidency and Republicans.

WE COULD STOP RIGHT HERE and HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO DEMAND A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ON THAT ONE QUESTION, WITHOUT MUCKING AROUND IN OTHER EXTRANEOUS DATA. BUT LET'S PROCEED TO OTHER EXAMPLES OF COMPLICITY.


I go on from there, and at the end of my webpage page I drift into stuff I need to clean up, but I think this is a good start. (It's actually easier to SAY than to write.) HOW BOUT CHOO?[/i]


Last edited by dilbert_g on Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:59 am; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like Deeplogos take on it. I agree with ATM: Northwoods ALONE is not good. Northwoods in Alex Jonesspeak "THEY WROTE THE PLANS FOR 9-11!!!!!" is not kosher at all. Northwoods IN CONTEXT is good. (see below)



DeepLogos wrote:
My preliminary take on it:

Possible 3i Independent International Investgation case material:

I have excluded the following aspects (for now) surrounding what happen before, on, and after 9/11-2001 because there may be a deliberate disinfo-factor attachet to it. Some aspects of may perhaps "support" a potential case, if only to prove minor details/ methodology of counter-intelligence (at a later stage):

1) Insider trading/"in your face" financial aspects (all though there are financial aspects worth adressing, my knowledge of this research is limited at this point).

The valid argument here is there was SOMETHING reported and Congress and the President chose NOT to pull records to investigate it. No investigation = no crime.

2) Aspects of the Northwoods document (release, "marketing" of it, validity, focus on the US government). I would not use this as a 'first contact' proof, but maybe introduce it as a sidenote at a later point to perhaps solidify the case, as it goes to show a sinister mindset (if indeed it is as 'official' as claimed)

Northwoods is still compelling in context with Tonkin, Iran-Contra, BCCI (both Al-Qaeda-related), as well as Operation Gladio (admitted now), documented complicity with the Nazis, the Pearl Harbor event itself (orchestrated by the Navy and the President), and the sinking of the Lusitania (orchestrated by Morgan, Ambassadors, the State Dept, and Wilson), and unclear circumstances of the sinking of the Maine (which were hyped in the Hearst media empire without evidence), and all the bullshit around the first Gulf War on Iraq (pre-orchestrated circumstances to slam Saddam), and all the various CIA and military lies regarding Latin Am and whatnot.

Each of these could take a page or paragraph. I think I could redo my own Pretexts page on this to summarize. (BTW, Jones did briefly cover this historical in one of his earlier videos, going back to Nero in Rome and of course the Reichstag.)

Tonkin is better known that Northwoods, so I led with it. For Tonkin, I said:
The well-known Gulf of Tonkin Incident provided the fake pretext to launch the full ground war in Vietnam, Official memos and recordings now in our National Archives confirm rumors that this incident never occurred, and was a conscious deception, not accidental. This is one irrefutable example of top US officials telling bald-faced lies to the public to start a war which would kill over 58,000 Americans. Tonkin was Lyndon Johnson's "WMD's", totally fabricated. They don't care about us. Get it? THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT HUMAN LIFE.


3) PNAC (pro-Neoconservative focus).

PNAC statements PLUS Brzezinski's books, Rockefeller's statements, Kissinger's actions, his statements and non-statements (i.e. times when he could have condemned mass murder by police state but didn't, his support for covertly overthrowing Allende and installing Pinochet), and other statements going back decades about global capitalist (or even stated as communist) imperialist domination ... this paints a good picture. I agree, painting it as ONLY neocon is a trap.

4) "Whistleblowers". There is always a "trap" attached to whistleblowers, things that at a later date (during a case) will discrdit them. When a real case is up and running, real witnesses and suppoenaed witnesses will strengthen the case.

I list 5 or 6 FBI whistleblowers and COMBINED they DO seem "legitimate", and it shows a PATTERN. They cannot ALL be impeached. Not just seventy memos from Harry Samit, but probably 100-150 memos total is the issue, plus threats of reprisals. If that's not incriminating ... I think that's REAL.

My disclaimer is that FBI agents are talking about a "real" Al-Qaeda. I think they were tracking money flows which would have led right back to some black op of the CIA /slash/ CIA-within-FBI, hence threats of reprisals for poking around.

On an FBI "more" page off my intro, I say:

When I think of Islamic Terrorist Hijackers, I think of intense, devout, committed religious nuts ... This story does not fit the facts. ... I can't see dropping $300 in a strip joint for lapdances and then actually committing Holy Suicide the next day ... playboy cokehead Arab decoys ... guvmint has remote planes ... CIA has voice morph tech ...

but DEEP says it below: low-level FBI probably got "fake intelligence".
Something stinks, even if we're not sure exactly what.

MORE DETAILS:
see http://www.Takeoverworld.info/fbi_hijacker.html


5) Mock-trials like the Moussaoui-trial. (this is a distraction, but must be countered at one point during the process of establishing a case).

(See above. The best testimony was Harry Samit. I don't know if Samit's words were a surprise to them or not. It was certainly damning, for anyone with common sense has to say "incompetence?!! WTF?!!")

6) Aspects of building 7. The collapse itself may be used as proof of funny business, as well as the financial aspects concerning documents pertaining to ongoing investigations. In my mind it is very much in our faces, so to speak, as it adds to the information overload and spreads the focus of the researches (much like having the "attacks" happening at many locations). It's like their saying; "Now here's something for you to investigate!" Focusing on the collapse itself, the time of the collapse and certain aspects of what was in the building is more than enough.

WTC7 is good, if it's not an obsession. Yes, it fell for unknown, unstated reasons. There has been secrecy, no photos released *showing* the cause. Even if it was damaged on the side, it crimped in the middle. It didn't lean and fall. It can be fairly easily understood, BUILDINGS LIKE WTC7 DO NOT just crumble in one place on their footprint without being engineered to crumble. Engineering = pre-engineering = foreknowledge = complicity and/or gross deception. (conceivably, some excuse could be concocted)

Buildings like the Towers do not EXPLODE while smoldering, and rapidly crumble and disintegrate to dust. They may topple and crash, IF there were sufficient cause for the structure to fail at a point. "Pancaking" is the "single-bullet-theory". OOH OOH "the Double-Pancake Theory" (surely someone somewhere has said this)

Belaboring that point ad infinitum is a trap, an "orgy of evidence". Anyone arguing FOR pancaking or FOR the single-bullet theory is an idiot and should be treated as such. Let's put it this way: Pancaking is a W-I-D-E---S-T-R-E-T-C-H of the imagination, bordering on fantasy if not outright impossibility. There are simpler explantions.


7) Documents pertaining to the WTC-complex being "the best built structure" of it's kind and having had upgrades. (plausible deniability) This will be used to counter claims of deliberate demolition, and must be addressed at a later stage.

Yeah.

8 ) Mohamed Atta. This patsy is the "conspiratorial" aspect of the official story, and the lead character in the screnplay of 9/11. The inconsistencies surrounding this man is definitively worth addressing, if only to prove how utterly ludicrus the official story is as to him and the "highjackers" in general, but he is definitively put out there for us to focus on (in more ways than claimed to begin with).

See above, cokehead playboys hanging out with gangsters and Republicans. Specific details are murky. That his ALLEGED girlfriend has NOT been on Larry King or any of the other filth-spewing talk shows is remarkable and amazing.

9) Money transfers to Atta (and others?) from Pakistani intelligence (via middle men). Pakistani intelligence (and the Mossad) could have been instrumental in providing parts of the story/ "proof" to support official claims/ and throw off an investigation into 9/11. They certainly knew/know the Mujahedeen/Al Quida story just as well as Al Bzigniew. I also know far too little about this part of the tory to ask the best questions. I refer to Gary (dilbert_g) in the BFN forum in this regard.

WE have to think about this. BUSTED or part of the psyop??

It's TOO TOTALLY DAMNING --- but mostly in a LIHOP context, because the money transfers were secretly wired TO THE "HIJACKERS" --- who we think are most likely decoys.

If the hijackers were decoys, then the money transfer from the Paki General (in Washington, meeting with the future CIA director et al.) ["et al." means, "and others"] as I was saying, then the Paki-Gen and Porter Goss and the whole US Government getting BUSTED for the money transfer must also have been a red herring decoy.

Hmmm. Something FISHY here.

Too damaging to purposely "leak" that they were MEETING with Al-Qaeda in the White House, yet too LIHOP to be REAL!!


Would Porter Goss REALLY be that sloppy to ORDER the money transfers and be caught with his pants down having breakfast with the guy? Yet it was apparently "discovered" by India by accident, after the fact.

It looked like Goss, Condoleeza, and others appeared to REALLY go to great lengths to suppress it, Condi cut off a reporter's questions and lied on TV saying she hadn't heard about it. Most transcripts had excised the name-detail (Gen. Ahmad from Pakistan) --- I guess to steer the majority of reporters off the trail.

How many 9-11 activists even KNOW about how Ahmad was "busted", or how he "took down" the CIA and USG with him? Aren't "activists" all stuck on the missile hitting the Pgon? What good is a psyop that no one knows about? -- to what end??? Tree falls in a forest ...

Pakistan WAS the main conduit for Mujahideen -/- Al-Qaeda supplies and money. Even the CFR says so, as does Chossudovsky and many mainstream articles and govt documents he cites. PAKISTAN, home of the CIA University Madrasses, pipeline for cash and weapons. I think this is a credible reference point for reality.

I don't think there's any other way to present this other than state BOTH scenarios, with no conclusion. The public should DEMAND answers on that HUGE-BUT-OBSCURE SCANDAL, and people should KNOW that it was reported overseas that Al-Qaeda was in the White House.

If we reject LIHOP, then the incredibly damaging SCANDAL was created as an intentional diversion to get the ants running around a LIHOP story.

(the fact that no one was actually damaged because it was suppressed is not indicative that it was phony, Bush could get busted strangling and eating kittens and they'd suppress that too)



10) Cheering Israelis. Intended to "move" the investigation in yet another direction (pun intended).

You're just covering up for the Jews and the ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government). Smile

11) +++

A few general points about proving the case from the top of my head:

Pre-9/11-2001:

1) The creation of Al Quida.

YES YES YES. And not just the creation, but the documented ONGOING covert support for Al-Qaeda and joint operations through five administrations. Which reportedly and almost certainly includes the current administration and current activities. Iran-Contra, BCCI, and the (suppressed) Republican Kosovo report on Clinton covers the previous three administrations.

A lot of folks are shocked to hear about about Ali Mohamed the dual-role Al-Qaeda *manager* (not patsy) who was also Special Forces, Green Beret, and tied to FBI / CIA for 15 years. Caught and Released. Point: Not an isolated case. This is part of Al-Qaeda history from 87-2001.



2 a) The history of intelligence involvement in terror acts.
2 b) Post cold war vacume vs. military spending (desire for a "new world order").

YES YES YES. (2b) Cold War vacuum is slightly speculative a REASON, but it's provable in some ways. Timing. Allegedly Bush actually propped up the USSR, to forestall the "peace dividend". I like "history of fascism" and stated NWO plans.

3) Pre-existing plans for pre-emtive attack against other countries/ pre-existing documents supporting what would follow the desire for that (Patriot Act).

YES.


4) Refusal to take low-level intelligence warnings seriously (even if deliberate "intelligence" probably was inserted/ "leaked" for them to pick up on.) This would take the focus off real international intelligence knowleged and involvment, and set up the scenario for people to focus on the US government.

We think alike. That's my fave theory on how all those sincere FBI agents got duped. GROSS refusal, and the fact that EVERYONE KNOWS BECAUSE IT WAS ON TV, is important, because it's far far far beyond "incompetence", regardless of what the "good agents" concluded.

5) Evacuations, powerdowns, warnings not to fly, changes in command for 9/11 (Pentagon), senior officials being out of Washington on that day, removal of bomb-snifing dogs, pluss other changes made before 9/11.

Ok, but sounds mostly rumor-licious coincidence to me. I know there were news articles. I think the news stories about the "hijackers" training at US mil bases, which were then denied and yanked, may be more substantial than these things which seem to say LIHOP, they knew (or feared) "something" was coming. Good for "supporting info", IMHO, on the LIST of anomalies.

6) +++

On 9/11-2001:

1) The nature of the collapses (WTC 1,2 and 7 vs. 3, 4, 5 and 6).

Look at the relative lack of damage to the entire structure (besides just the fire zone),
Towers EXPLODING NEAR THE TOP and collasping/exploding/disintegrating down the sides,
explosions and collapse starting below the damage,
the short time prior to total catastrophic failure of the steel frame (about one hour),
the impossible symmetry of collapse,
the time OF the collapse itself (less than 20 seconds per structure, < 0.2 per floor),
the sheer volume of the visible explosive force beginning the moment of collapse (and what looked like explosive "squibs")
WTC7 crimping in the middle and collapsing inward, which allegedly some experts called a "perfect 10" demo ...
... grab a video and LOOK at the goddam thing go down ... many other obvious abnormalities.

Besides that, no action was taken to evern INTERCEPT two, three, or four known hijackings, after long periods had passed, and even the Pentagon was left defenseless. This boggles the mind, because it is so implausible.


2) Knowledge of imminent collapse. (?)

ehh, they were "creaking"

3) Numerous reports of explosions well below impact zone. (testemony + visuals), also potential traces of explosives.

Yes, possibly somewhat ambiguous.

4) Mineta's testimony regarding Cheney (perhaps).

What about two major terrorism cases (1999 and 2002-3) involving money trails and paper trails successfully SUPPRESSED thrown out, dismissed, blanket legal immunity. This was handled by two top lawyers -- Chertoff and Baker.

The case Michael Chertoff (now Dir of Homeland Security) picked up has original online records from Bergen County, back when the public didn't know his name, but Ken Starr and the Whitewater team did. Baker grabbed the 2nd case where he suppressed evidence on Saudis, and this was described on MSNBC and CNN, but the main detail --- that Baker-Botts Law Firm = James A. Baker = Bush family attorney and consultant --- was missing from both reports.

WHY DID THEY DO IT??? Why did the media NOT tell us and raise a stink?

The only plausible answer is that these cases would have uncovered evidence which would break the 9-11 psyop and implicate the government, and had to be suppressed at any cost. If not suppressed, important people would be heading to the gallows or electric chair.


5) "Highjacker" navigation from point of highjack to Washington and NY, and certain flight maneuvers.

YES YES YES. The Pentagon manuever, the fact that the extremely difficult maneuver was used to MISS the occupied part of the Pentagon, the incredible breadth of the gap between pilot's skills and needed skills, and the total lack of interception and shootdown, despite KNOWING by then it would crash.

6) What happened to Pentagons defence system.

(see above)

7) Exercises taking place that day/ Flight responce time/ Normal procedures vs. what happened at 9/11/ [pre-9/11:] Possibly funding, procurement and NGO and private interests involvement as it relates to the exercises/ technology. (needs more research)

Last part needs subpeonas, doesn't it? The first part can be stated without Mike Ruppert's conflicting timelines, which are confusing. Point is simple: by ANY stretch of the imagination the 2nd tower or CERTAINLY the Pentagon should have been stopped.

The fact that Eberhard or Myers ADMITTED the Exercises on CSPAN, and said those Exercises gave them FASTER response time, though what could be slower than 0 for 4.


8 ) +++

Post-9/11-2001:

1) Removal of evidence from a crime scene/ Unwillingness or inability to stop this removal from happeneing (impeachable offence).

YES YES

2) Unwillingness to investigate 9/11 and the commissions failure to address key point of what happened that day.

I think the "independent" Commission was assigned to produce a report about Intelligence failures, which they did. IF they were ordered to find evidence of Blue Holograms or "Whatzits'-cum-UFOs they could have produced that report instead of Intell failures. When you define the terms ahead of time, ...

3) The conflict of interest of key people in the 9/11 commission.

Uh huh. Easily stated. Saturated in oil, Caspian region, plus some organized crime, narcotics, corruption.

4) The rapidity with which the identity of the highjackers was established/ why and how they were identified + changing passenger lists with none of them on the manfestos (even though Betty Ong mentined the seat number where at lest one of the "highjackers" sat)

Very simply, the instant ID of the Hijackers and the "knowing" that it was Osama Bin Laden within hours, this mimics how Lee Harvey Oswald was fingered on no evidence, to the point of that "break in the Matrix" where New Zealand newspapers published Oswald as culprit before Dallas or FBI announced it.

5) Unwillingness to provide evidence for "muslim fanatic" involvement, or anything else for that matter.

Yep. But people somehow THINK they've seen evidence.

6) Unwillingness to release statements, photos, audio and video to prove their case or inform us of what happend that day (pentagon, FAA, Norad, White House, in the towers, on the planes, etc) Some has been released, but only under great pressure and far from everything.

Bastards. Hide and seek-y. Tug of War-ry.

7) Fake Osama confession videos/ Osama claiming to have had nothing to do with 9/11 to a Pakistani journalist (this could be an orchestrated thing to be proven to be false at a later date).

I watched the live video again. It was unclear whether it was OBL or not. I know I still have that "Rense" piece on my webpage. Facing one way it looked like "Fatty Bin Laden", facing another way it looked like him. Kevin Barrett said it was NOT his style of speaking.

8 ) +++

I still have far too much info in my head that I need to digest, and I know that there are things I have left out, and possibly included things that may be dubvious.

Never the less... Arrow

-DL- Question


you helped ME define a lot of things
One point I see, if it's not clear, that a lot of things people (including me) "orgy-up" could simply be LISTED and "weighted" for things like
credibility
relevance
LIHOP-ishness
conclusive or vague

For example, Oswald's LOAN from the US Embassy to return, I think is solid.
Dulles whole history with JFK up to being on the Warren Commission is spot on relevant.
Oswald's photo with Seal and Ferrie is solid.
His office near Banister's is slightly less solid, except that ALL (or many) of his friends were White Russians (right wing) and Nazis and CIA and FBI and cops.
Oswald's mistress story that was on the History Channel --- feh!! -- esp since it pointed to Lyndon Johnson as the PERP or MAIN antagonist not as a participant in a much larger op.
And rifle-firing tests -- similar to Hani Hanjour's plane ride -- are factual, but worth the obsession. (A cop friend told me that they just found someone who fired Oswald's rifle and hit the targets 3 times. But in context, that's so miniscule. Oswald couldn't hit a rabbit. The tester probably trained for 40 years.)

Well, this was fun, ... sort of ...

addendum
In my understanding, this is an ANALYSIS site, just putting together the KNOWN info. We don't even CARE about ALL the known info, it's a matter of sifting to reveal the gems. I think about it in terms of how I would present it to a conspiracy skeptic. All you really need is ONE or TWO items which are known to be irrefutable --- like on these neocons who were ex-mil, they were willing to concede that what we call the 'standdown', the NO RESPONSE despite ample warning, made no sense from a mil standpoint.

(I"m not arguing against more info, but in favor of honing to the solid pieces.)

I've only met ONE doofy politician willing to argue that support for the Mujahideen is materially different from support for Al-Qaeda, and I always stress it was the SAME outfit, before the official naming. This means continuous support for Al-Qaeda starting July 3, 1979 for the next 20 years minimum, a good basis to allege that this has continued and is an OP, not a rogue.

They can try to deny that or laugh it off, but the "Father of Al-Qaeda" said so, backed it up, and Sen. Orrin Hatch publicly agreed that it was a great idea.

"Mr. Skeptic, do YOU think the Muj were 'good guys'? Do you really think they just changed? If they changed to bad guys, why were still working side-by-side with them in 97-99? And if that was treason, why did the Repubs suppress their own report on Clinton?"

Hardly any normal person is willing to take a position to ARGUE in SUPPORT of the pre-Qaeda Al-Qaeda that they were "good guys" and "freedom fighters", just to refute a conspiracy theorist -- though I've met one other now that I think of it [Talk Radio host], and I just asked him if he was pro-Al-Qaeda. Laughing
"I mean COM'ON, Bob, it's the SAME PEOPLE, Bob!!!" Laughing
Arguing that it was the Jimmy Carter who installed them and both parties who irrefutably nurtured them, this removes the PARTISAN BIAS smear.
Bob "fought valiantly" with me, but there's seemingly no good answer to that question.

So that alone seems to put me 2-0 slam dunk in favor of "inside job" with MOST die-hard conspiracy refuters. The "Green Beret" story or any other uncomplicated story just seals it, IMHO. The physics is then icing on the cake, in other words just as everyone knows these Al-Qaeda cannot be 'freedom fighters' "you KNOW buildings don't just collapse like that" almost as an afterthought.
Back to top
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary

what is your typing speed?

Shiiieet.

atm Sad Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary,

I very much agree with your take on the one or two aspects surrounding 9/11 as "enough" to present to John Doe and Mr. Sceptic, given that one thoroughly backs the 'irrefutable' part of it. I also appreciate you knowledge and input on my preliminary suggestions.

Just a thought; What if as a initial step, to "set the stage", so to speak for people to draw their own conclusions, leave out what happened on 9/11, and to begin with present a few things historically (pre-9/11) and a few things from what happened after 9/11 (and I emphesize to begin with).

There are many dubvious theories as to what happened on that day, and much of this is putting the general public off. What has happened historically and what happened in the wake of 9/11 may represent the proof needed to establish that initial "contact" with the above mentioned John Doe and Mr Skeptic.

What would provide the background: (methodical suggestions only):
Even though the history of Al Quida and intelligence/state involment in terror acts can be established with a great amount of certainty, this seems to be what people just can't get their heads around, and is perhaps one of the main reasons people don't "want" to understand 9/11 as such. (in addition to the psychological factor), so I suggest (as metioned above):

1) The true nature and proof of Osama, Al Quida and the people/ agencies behind him/them.

2) The nature and proof of western intelligence/ state involvment in terror acts and the desire to cover it up (+ the motive for doing this)

What would prove our take on 9/11 based on what happened afterwards:
Focusing on what happened immediately after 9/11 will perhaps prove most fruitful.

1) Removal of evidence from the WTC site/ Pre-scripted highjacker scenario (with no proof or intelligence to support it)

2) The reluctancy to investigate 9/11, Administration's/ Commision's/Media's unwillingness to address certain aspects, the deliberate disemination of questionable and downright wrong info/ lying about it.

Explaning this in the context of why a sole focus on Bush Inc. is not the right way to go about it (all though it does involve them) may also prove useful and also make them understand why this has been such a difficult task to begin with.

Just a suggestion.

Again, thanks for the input.

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeepLogos wrote:
Gary,

I very much agree with your take on the one or two aspects surrounding 9/11 as "enough" to present to John Doe and Mr. Sceptic, given that one thoroughly backs the 'irrefutable' part of it. I also appreciate you knowledge and input on my preliminary suggestions.

Just a thought; What if as a initial step, to "set the stage", so to speak for people to draw their own conclusions, leave out what happened on 9/11, and to begin with present a few things historically (pre-9/11) and a few things from what happened after 9/11 (and I emphesize to begin with).

RIGHT.

There are many dubvious theories as to what happened on that day, and much of this is putting the general public off. What has happened historically and what happened in the wake of 9/11 may represent the proof needed to establish that initial "contact" with the above mentioned John Doe and Mr Skeptic.

What would provide the background: (methodical suggestions only):
Even though the history of Al Quida and intelligence/state involment in terror acts can be established with a great amount of certainty, this seems to be what people just can't get their heads around, and is perhaps one of the main reasons people don't "want" to understand 9/11 as such. (in addition to the psychological factor), so I suggest (as metioned above):

1) The true nature and proof of Osama, Al Quida and the people/ agencies behind him/them.

2) The nature and proof of western intelligence/ state involvment in terror acts and the desire to cover it up (+ the motive for doing this)



I FINALLY GOT IT INTO THE FUCKING NUTSHELL (i think). And I think this will answer your question. I like to hit facts bam bam bam.

Motive is "subjective", I'd save that for later. Don't want to get caught there in a philosophical argument. If pressed, I'd say it SEEMS "War on Americans, War on People", PATRIOT Act factually shreds the Bill of Rights and hands unrestricted police powers to govt and their Global Capitalist Pirates. The fact is Brzezinski spelled it out, so there's no need to speculate on motive. Go to Wikipedia, or my site, and read his quotes. But motive comes after, IMO. Say, "forget about WHY for now, we'll get to that later."


My approach to Sept 11 and the GWOT is these few questions ... to start with.
1. Who created Al-Qaeda? Simple, simple question. I just start with this ONE. No one knows. Do you find that people can't get their heads around this question? Print out the interview if you want.

2. Who "nourished" Al-Qaeda? How long? What cost?
3. Who defended Al-Qaeda in court?
4. Who did "catch and release" on an Al-Qaeda operative in the USA? (alt, "Have you ever heard of Ali Mohamed? He was a major terrorist."
(see below)

There are LONG answers to these questions, or short ones.
1. Short answer.
Zbignew Brzezinski. Say it slowly. You were expecting Zebediyah bin Laden bin Bush? Nope. A Polish-ancestry Brit-American. National SECURITY Advisor. Under Jimmy Carter. July 3, 1979. (Tuesday. Easy date to remember ... and painful to think about July 4 and that our *security* specialist created it. shock and awe.) Soviet response on Dec 1979. How do we know? ZBIG SAID SO!

You probably need to know some details so you can refute smartass knee-jerk answers, like "freeing Afghanistan from communism". No, it was to LURE communists IN to Afghanistan. They didn't come til 6 mos later.
Oh here's one more: In 1998, Brz said it was a GREAT idea and he'd do it all over again, and Orrin Hatch also agreed with that (not sure when). I should probably carry Zbig's interview in my pocket.



1. Long addendum.
What is the Tri-Lateral Commission. 300 rich fucks who run the world, who want MORE money and MORE power.
The deeper relation of the Tri-Lateral Commission, the CFR, Rockefeller. Nazi ties. Eugenics. Wall Street, money, their tool the CIA, and everything CIA has done for them in the past (mass murder and terror to destroy democracy) and everything Brz said and wrote about the need for terror to launch global imperialism and control society thru deception and fear. What the TLC is about, it's part of that new NAFTA highway deal, 3 global economic regions. Chinese ports in Mexico or Peru, a highway through Mexico to Kansas City up in to Canada. bye bye republican democracy. Appointees overrule Congress and Parliament on all economic matters and every matter which affects anything economic. etc.


I would never try to explain the WHOLE thing, but I'd tell people to read about it for a week. Read what they did, said, are doing and saying.


2. Short answer.
Five Presidents. Carter of course. Reagan and Bush, Iran-Contra and BCCI were Al-Qaeda ops. Clinton - 1999 Republican Kosovo report, suppressed. (This proves they were an ally and a terror group at the same time.) Nurtured for 20-25 years. Officially 6 billion, unoffiicial est. $20-30 bn. (That burns too.)

LONGER addendum:
Bush?? The Macedonian President said Al-Qaeda men were seen w Pentagon on the ground in summer 2001. Believe it? Fits everything else.

Brzezinski is CURRENTLY working with his NGO in Chechnya which is striving for peace w Al-Qaeda cells. It's a PEACE project. (get it?) Members of ACPC include are former CIA chief, oil company leaders, Amer. Enterprise. (get it? a bunch of peacenik hippies, right?)
(of course THIS current stuff is slightly speculative ... but having p.r.o.o.f. of the rest ... it proves Al-Qaeda IS a USG op, so ... is the CIA really working on peace and love with them in the Caucausus region?)

OOPS, not speculative according to Chossudovsky: (google Osamagate)
And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian New Agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington's envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists.

3. Short answer.
James Baker (2003) and Michael Chertoff (1999). Most people know who they are, but you can emphasize. Not "Liberals" or "civil rights" attorneys. The doctor embezzled $6m Medicaid money and apparently gave it to Osama, offshore acct. No logical reason for Chertoff to have taken the case to get the doctor ACQUITTED of all charges, other than supression of ugly paper trails.
Baker is counsel for Saudi Royals, so he's "IT". But Americans don't know that he got Saudis blanket immunity from Discovery -- revealing evidence.

LONGER addendum:
More details about the Chertoff case. Dr. Magdy Elamir. The fact that the details of the case are online, in Bergen County. The fact that Chertoff was running an investigation into terrorism money trails while he covered up a terror money trail (Operation Green Quest).

The fact that Baker was the one who won the Supreme case against Gore.
The history of Baker and the Bush family, going back to Operation 40 and Zapata Petroleum near Cuba. The fact that W worked in his office at age 15, Baker has set up all their oil businesses, including with Saudis and with the Bin Laden family.

(Binladen Contruction is a contractor to the Saudis and to USG, like Halliburton. They do oil wells and pipelines and military installations.)


4. Short answer.
Ali Mohamed. MAJOR Al-Qaeda terrorist. Egyptian Intell. Very close to Osama. Involved in EVERY MAJOR ATTACK and the assassination of Sadat. THEN he came to America and joined the Army. Became Green Beret, and instructor ... while STILL doing Al-Qaeda stuff. Left the Army on his own volition for a month, to fight with Al-Qaeda in Kabul, then returned. Honorable discharge with special commendations for Valor etc. TOTALLY in contact with FBI and CIA. FBI had his phone number in Nairobi. Finally convicted of five counts of conspiracy he pled to .. secret plea agreement. Disappeared from a Federal Prison while awaiting sentencing in 2001.

*(I like this because the story starts on that conspiracy theory website, the US State Dept.)*

People understand you don't "disappear" from Fed Prison. He was Caught and Released. There's more to these stories of course, but I'd rather have folks read them and see links if they want.


LONGER addendum:
I dunno. The fact that he brought Zawahiri to America .. Twice .. as his bodyguard. Name the major attacks, Nairobi, Kenya, USS Cole, Khobar. That some of these had some aspect of foreknowledge (Vinnell base, someone let them in, Cole, Israel supposedly knew). A.M. got a job for a US defense contractor in California too. He helped Osama relocate ... twice, on a C130 with an entourage, big party. That John O Neill was blocked by Clinton AND Bush trying to pry open USS Cole, he "lost" his briefcase "temporarily" at a Florida hotel, was humiliated in the FBI, finally he QUIT, and then died on S11.
More covered by the Israeli intell site, Debkafile (sounds impressive) and on more details on Cooperative research timeline.



What would prove our take on 9/11 based on what happened afterwards:
Focusing on what happened immediately after 9/11 will perhaps prove most fruitful.

1) Removal of evidence from the WTC site/ Pre-scripted highjacker scenario (with no proof or intelligence to support it)

The guy in the ponytail said it best on Martial Law. Guiliani's a prosecutor. He knows a thing or two about preserving a crime scene. People had to sue to stop it. The argument was that computer analysis would suffice, no evidence needed.

Pre-scripted highjacker scenario: I like the term "cokehead playboy jackoffs gambling lapdances Miami-Vice-style hanging with strippers and Mobsters, big time dope dealers .. and Republican-connected criminals". It seems to be at odds with "Islamic Fundamentalist", no?

"Pre-scripted highjacker scenario" may be true, but no impact.

See what I mean?




2) The reluctancy to investigate 9/11, Administration's/ Commision's/Media's unwillingness to address certain aspects, the deliberate disemination of questionable and downright wrong info/ lying about it.

Bush called for NO investigation, because it would impede his War on Terror. I have never got around to mentioning that, but it's on my site. I said "No Shit! Of course it would impede him."

Ben Veniste was Clinton's lawyer and a known mob lawyer who also served Barry Seal. If you can explain who Barry Seal was. Coke trafficker by the TON on C-130s, CIA for about 30 years, tied to Clinton in that Jerry Falwell "Clinton Chronicles" documentary about Mena, Arkansas, but also tied to George Bush Sr. Seal flew with Operation 40, which was tied to JFK assassination. (Do you know how it was tied?) Nuff?

Also Kean owned a company with ties to the Afghanistan pipeline.
Lee Hamilton and John Kerry helped cover up Iran-Contra and I think BCCI too.



Explaning this in the context of why a sole focus on Bush Inc. is not the right way to go about it (all though it does involve them) may also prove useful and also make them understand why this has been such a difficult task to begin with.

See John Kerry above. See Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter above.

Brzezinski is considered a Democrat, even tho he's a switch hitter.

Compared to the Neocons, they don't like him because they think he's TOO CAUTIOUS. They are BOTH playing the same game, but Neocons are just more reckless, and it invites disasters and embarrassments and some *public awareness".

But BOTH approved of Sept 11. They said so, in so many words. If Gore had won, we MIGHT have a draft and 500,000 troops in Iraq, 1 million more rotating. Brz said go for total overwhelming lockdown on Iraq, or don't go at all. But Brz wanted the safer option of bases in Afghanistan and continued decimation of Iraqis by "containment" i.e. genocidal sanctions. Slower imperialism, less messy.




Just a suggestion.

Again, thanks for the input.

-DL-



I'd bring my Laptop or notes if I was doing a lecture (which no activist seems to want). I planned to go into the history of American Labor-strife and the rise of Fascism as a starting point of discussing HISTORY (after the other stuff), vs. Jones starting with Nero in Rome and the power-hungry Illuminati.

Frankly, I think most of the "longer addendum stuff" is unnecessary for a verbal exchange. I've struggled to get it in a nutshell, especially because of time limits on Talk Radio which vary from 4 min (WNIR) to <1 min on most. And MTV attention spans of most people.

As I said, I'd get Northwoods etc. in there at some point if I could. Icing, but good icing.

Wall Street may have funded communism, but they wanted CONTROLLED communism, not Castro, not Chavez. They were willing to murder Americans to destroy Castro, but JFK wouldn't let 'em.
And apparently one faction of the ruling class was very happy with the Soviets. Maybe both factions. After all, they only threatened Russia. They attacked peasants everywhere. The WAR on WORKING PEOPLE and the poor.

It's not rocket science, it's SLAVERY, behind rhetoric, high-tech, and puppet dictatorships.


What gets in depends on how long you have to converse and keep people's attention. I like to cover #1 in about 30 seconds or so, but if someone wants to argue that I can go into details to prove I know my facts.

I mean, I can stroke it if need be, make THEM tell ME how funding Al-Qaeda for 20-25 years makes sense. Do they AGREE with Hatch and Brzezinski that it was a GREAT idea? quote: "You want me to REGRET that?"

If they were still a covert CIA Op in 1997 or 99, after all those terrorist attacks, when do you suppose they stopped being a CIA Op? The day Bush was inaugurated?

As well as, "Why is no one talking about that on TV? Isn't it interesting that US National Security admittedly created Al-Qaeda?"

You can have some fun with that.

I think I can do all 4 in about a minute or two .. or longer. Lately, I do 1 and squeeze in 2. Then I do 4. I say "Al-Qaeda IS an Intelligence an OP." Then 3 very simply if time allows, for icing on the cake.

If they're military, HOW do you explain how they couldn't even defend the Pentagon in a friggin hour and a half?? Did Osama put VALIUM in the coffeepots??

Normal People are usually stunned, shaking their heads, neocons desperately want to rebut but they can't. They can TRY to be skeptical like you're loony, but there's nowhere to go.
It's NOT an opinion.

Or Neocon Military try to change the topic to rebutting "No Plane Hit the Pentagon", which I immediately tell them is the looniest idea I ever heard (if they're testy) or at least that it's very sketchy. But the fact that the alleged pilot was too goofy to be a stunt pilot no matter how easy you make the flight or how skillful you make Hani Hanjour, no friggin way. Prof Pilots may disagree whether it COULD be done, but whether HE could have done it is stupid. He could barely drive a Honda to the store.


How's that??????????????????


Last edited by dilbert_g on Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
aspectus



Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

here's my quick feeble attempt

10- internal papers like northwoods etc
9- history of false flag terror
8- the blame put on CIA assets
7- the false war that followed
6- mysterious building 7 collapse, and what was inside that building
5- thermate like spew just before collapse
6- conspicuous suicides ater the fact
5- resignations of top officials after the fact
4- pre-event insider trading
3- immediate disposal of evidence
2- lack of defense against the second strike
1- duh snap the fuck out of it dude, watch the buildings fall

_________________
The larger a society or confederacy, the greater the amalgamation of collective factors - which is typical of every large organization - the more aggravated the moral and spiritual degeneration of the individual. - Carl Gustav Jung
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 1 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.