A Hidden Story Behind Sept. 11? One Man's Ad Campaign Says So

[graphixtech]

November 8, 2004
A Hidden Story Behind Sept. 11? One Man's Ad Campaign Says So
By IAN URBINA
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/nyregion/08ads.html


WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 - The grainy 30-second commercials are eerie and
cryptic, and they suggest a government cover-up of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. One implies that no plane flew into the Pentagon. The othersuggests that 7 World Trade Center, which collapsed late in the afternoon that day, was detonated from within. The advertisements, which ran repeatedly here and in New York between Oct. 20 and Nov. 2 on several cable networks, including CNN, Fox News and ESPN, offer a Web site, an address and a phone number but give little indication who is behind them.
(more)

"But in New York, the ads may have found a particularly receptive audience. A Zogby poll of New Yorkers' opinions about the 9/11 investigation, released last month, indicated that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state residents believed that some federal officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." The poll also found that 66 percent of New York City residents and 56 percent of state residents wanted a fuller investigation of the "still unanswered questions."
(more)

"One skeptic who wants Mr. Spitzer to open an investigation is W. David Kubiak, who lives in Kennebunkport, Maine, and runs a Web site called 911Truth.org. He said that not all doubters had gone as far as Mr. Walter in their conspiracy theories. Most people in his group, he said, including families of 9/11 victims, simply want more of an explanation why there were so many problems that day involving emergency communication and the chain of command.

"Toward a New Criminal Investigation into the Events of September 11, 2001"

http://justicefor911.org/


http://www.911Truth.org/

[catzies]

1. He lives in Kennebunkport?

I love it.

[JackRiddler]

8. Yes he does and this is what "his" site has posted on NYT:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, November 8, 2004

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041108135825946

Today the 911Truth.org Web site is receiving thousands of new visitors, presumably because The New York Times printed a story that reports, for the first time in "the Paper of Record," on: 

- 911Truth.org

- the complaint and petition to Eliot Spitzer demanding a new criminal investigation of unsolved September 11 crimes (available online at www.Justicefor911.org)

- and the Zogby International poll that found that one-half of New York City residents believe high government officials had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks and "consciously failed to take action."

We welcome our new visitors and invite you to explore...

Read the NY Times article and a collection of top stories on alternative 9/11 research and the burgeoning truth movement at

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041108135825946

[Sperk]

2. God bless him, that's exactly what I'd be doing if I had millions

n/t

[dogtag]

3. I hate to out myself as an official tin foil hat wearer, BUT

I have one big, fat nagging factoid that keeps swirling around the outer reaches of my brain.

It was apparently a huge surprise to structural engineers everywhere that the twin towers actually collapsed. There had never been any tests that remotely covered the possibility of an airliner filled with jet fuel driven directly into a mega skyscraper would cause the core of the building to implode. From all the materials I pored over, not one engineer had made any prediction of this sort.

The 'crazy ass' theory that the 'government' was somehow implicated in not aggressively stopping the attacks only work for me if 'they' thought the damage and loss of life would be limited to the floors and adjoining floors actually hit by the planes. I'm certain that the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks exceeded the planners wildest dreams, whoever they were.

[JohnyCanuck]

9. But there's still the case of WTC 7

It was not hit by an aircraft and yet it also collapsed into its own footprint on 9/11 after a fire. It would be the first steel framed structure in history that has collapsed into it own footprint solely as a reult of a fire.

From 911truth.org's response to the NYT article:

>> With regard to Prof. Corbett's comments, we wish to point out the deficiencies in the reasons he gives for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on the afternoon of September 11:

The reason 7 World Trade Center collapsed straight down, said, was most likely the large amounts of diesel fuel stored in the building's lower levels. The fuel was meant to power emergency generators.

"The conspiracy theorists fail to recognize that there was structural damage in Building 7 caused by flying debris after the first two towers collapsed," Mr. Corbett said. "This led to fires that burned for several hours which eventually collapsed Building 7, too."

Let us first reverse the tired phrase, "conspiracy theorists," which is invariably used to block inquiry: The official story of the 9/11 attacks was itself a conspiracy theory. We happen not to believe it.

More important, however, is that if Prof. Corbett is right, then WTC 7 was the first steel-frame skyscraper in history to collapse smoothly into its own footprint entirely due to a building fire. In doing so, WTC 7 perfectly mimicked the implosion effect of a controlled demolition.

Documentation of significant structural damage to Building 7 from flying debris has yet to be provided; other nearby buildings were heavily damaged by debris and did not collapse, let alone into their own footprint, or even catch fire.

Prof. Corbett neglects to mention that a FEMA report of May 2002 ("World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations") specifically ruled out the diesel-fuel hypothesis, which he has revived, as unlikely. FEMA arrived at a rather vague conclusion: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collpase remain unknown at this time." <<

www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041108135825946

Some links to video clips of the WTC 7 collapse.

http://www.9-11research.com/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

http://www.9-11research.com/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg

http://www.9-11research.com/videos/docs/wtc7.rm

[Mizmoon]

29. I remember that day vivdly because it happened 20 miles from me

I listened to local radio and TV broadcasts here in NY. I can tell you that I distinctly remember them saying that 7 WTC was teetering, that the blast had fucked it up, and that this was a reason why they didn't want people pouring into the area to help - there was likely to be another collapse.

You can probably twist this into fitting with the theory, but I can tell you this - that day was total and utter chaos. For hours there were almost NO emergency workers there because the majority of them were DEAD! There was no organization, nothing. It was the closest thing to total chaos I've ever seen in my life. I saw people in suits walking home along the Long Island Expressway like zombies.

I think the government knew in advance because of the memo they got that said, "Bin Laden is going to attack. And soon."

As for anything organizied that day, like a demolition, I can only shake my head and say, "Only someone who wasn't here could say that."

[SayitAintSo]

11. I completely agree with that... n/t

[ldf]

12. didn't bin laden say in this last video

that they had not expected the towers to collapse?

[BernieBear]

16. Why?

Why do you think that they would only be involved if limited to damage on the above floors.

Have you seen "In Plane Site". Looks like the floors had detonations go off on each floor to bring it down, at least that's what the fire dept rescue guys said.

If someone (anyone) is willing to fly a jet into a building, then a few thousand extra people are probably not of that much concern to them.

You've read the PNAC document? It's interesting.

Ah, we may never know. It's amazing what one guy on dialysis located in a dusty cave can accomplish isn't it?

BB

[graphixtech]

4. The Honourable Paul Hellyer, Former Canadian Defense Minister

This is an interesting interview between Kyle Hence (of 911Citizenswatch and 911Truth) and Paul Hellyer. There is a (seven minute) video link of this interview available at the end of this transcript.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/alerts/hellyer.php


Kyle Hence: Hello. Thank you for taking time with us. Please introduce yourself, with a little bit of your background, for our viewers.

Paul Hellyer: Hi, my name is Paul Hellyer. I'm a former Canadian politician, a member of three administrations. I'm the former Minister of National Defense, and rose to the rank of Deputy Prime Minister in the Trudeau Administration.

Kyle Hence: Where were you when 9-11 (11 September 2001) occurred? Share with us some of your observations about how the world hinged on this event, and some of your concerns about the policies that have been put in place after 9-11.

Paul Hellyer: I was in my office and one of the staff members herd something on radio and I said, well let's turn on the TV and see what we can find out and we did. And we watched as most people did, the terrible events unfold minute by minute. And you have that feeling of sick horror . . . sort of . . . you know, this has got to be some kind of surrealism . . . can't be real. But, the longer the day went on the more evidence there was that this was no joke. This was a real thing and that it was just so awful that it was beyond description. And so I was one of the people that just felt . . . well, like most of the world, and certainly most Canadians a deep grief and shared the loss of the people whoíd lost friends, loved ones, as a result of the attack. And I did many of the things that people did. I went to a special church service, and signed the book and did the things I thought were appropriate for the circumstances.

Kyle Hence: There were many Canadians who died too.

Paul Hellyer: Yes, absolutely. It was not obvious at the time, but this came later when the statistics were made public. So, my attitude never changed about that aspect of things. But, I think what did change over time were the consequences. When President Bush decided to declare war on terrorism. Terrorism is a terrible thing, but this was a police problem and an intelligence problem. What was wrong with your intelligence? Why didn't you know this was going to happen? You spend billions and billions with spooks all over the world and surely you should have known what was going on. And, so I began to be concerned about that. And then questions were raised by others. Why did the President just sit in the schoolroom when he heard the news? Why did he not acknowledge that he already knew what was going on? As a former Minister of National Defense, when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews ? Is it Andrews right next to the capitol?

Kyle Hence: Yes, that's correct.

Paul Hellyer: With a quick action alert they should have been there in five minutes or ten minutes. If not, as the Minister of National Defense, which in the United States is the Secretary of Defense, I would want to say "why not?"

Kyle Hence: Does it disturb you, or do you have concerns about your neighbors to the south that there's been no inquiry at a defense level relative to the specific failure to scramble jets?

Paul Hellyer: I think the inquiry has been very shallow and superficial. And I would like to see a much tougher more in-depth inquiry. The evidence is that some people were allowed to fly out of the United States after the attack when American citizens were not allowed to fly in. And Canadians had the pleasure, I guess in a sense, of the company of tens of thousands, several tens of thousands of them in Canada for a few days, especially in Newfoundland where the people were most gracious in looking after them. But why were some members of the Bin Laden family allowed to fly out of the United States? Why?

There are so many questions. What is going wrong here? Or was there something going wrong? How much did they actually know? And you get into very deep territory because it's the same kind of thing as we saw with Pearl Harbor. Did the President know, or didn't he know? I don't know. But, it's a very good question.

Kyle Hence: But, there's some evidence to suggest he may have.

Paul Hellyer: There is some evidence to suggest that he may have and it was a deliberate decision on his part to let the attack happen because he wanted to get the United States into World War II. And otherwise it was going to be difficult to get Congressional approval.

Kyle Hence: So you can understand why perhaps people are asking the same question about President Bush and the Bush Administration.

Paul Hellyer: Absolutely. I think it's a fair question. I don't know what the answer is. But, I would like to ask the questions . . . or I would like to see someone in a position of authority ask these questions and insist on getting answers? At least to why some of the things happened that seem to be, for an ordinary person, inexplicable.

Kyle Hence: It seems like there's a fundamental lack of accountability and transparency, especially now in the wake of 9-11. Does that concern you in regards to what's happening in America with the Patriot Act, and the projection of American military power?

Paul Hellyer: Oh, very, very much so. I'm very disturbed about a lack of transparency. Everyone talks about it, and no one is willing to come clean, as it were. I just had lunch, interestingly enough with the designer of the Avro Arrow which was cancelled more than 40 years ago and one of the things we were discussing were the lies that people in government and the Air Force told at the time. And I guess this makes me all the more suspicious. If they lied about that, what else were they lying about? So, we were agreeing that you had to get behind the superficial and the spin and try and get at the truth. It's very difficult. It takes a lot of time. But, we have to try and get the truth. Because unless we do, as the good book says, "seek the truth and the truth will set you free." And I think that's what we've got to try to do and I hope that somebody has the courage and the persistence to keep at it until we can get it.

Kyle Hence: Thank you very much. I'll be in touch with you.

Paul Hellyer: Good.

A video of this interview, and many other 9/11 informational videos can be watched here:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/

[Sterling]

5. Nice article.

thx

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

7. Kick...

...both articles are interesting.

[hangloose]

6. For those who can't get their heads around this because it seems

so fantastic, please spend time at 911truth.org and the links you will find at the site. The more you read and investigate the more the governments story of that day seem impossible. Were not talking theories here were speaking to hard evidence dispelling the cover story sold to all of us.

There are many deficiencies in the governments story, kinda like swiss cheese. But one aspect Flight 77 that allegedly hit the pentagon was the straw that broke my doubt and made me a believer.

[TheIdiot]

10. So many contradictions...

so little interest.

Why bother?

13. New info--

http://www.ideamouth.com/politics/

White House Memo Leads to Sept. 11th Money Trail By Dan Spillane and Audrey Mantey, The Liberty Whistle
-At least five normally independent indicators moved in sync after Bush warned
-On Sept. 10th, instead of US citizens getting a warning, Halliburton got a contract

(10/6 UPDATE includes new Must see! MONEY TRAIL TO WHITE HOUSE GRAPHIC; click HERE .)

(SEATTLE) 09/30/04 - A series of new findings brings into doubt Bush Administration claims regarding September 11th, and shows the work of the 9-11 Commission is incomplete. According to what Bush told the public, and as documented in the 9-11 report, an August 6th 2001 memo delivered to the White House warned of imminent attacks (“Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US”)--but was described as “historical in nature,” and thus was essentially ignored by the White House. (1) Therefore, as far as the public knows, no actions were taken based on the memo.

It’s not as if the US hasn’t been looking for unusual pre-9-11 actions. In fact, the official 9-11 report examined stock trading before the attacks, and concluded with some degree of confidence that there weren’t profits taken based on information before the attacks. Unfortunately, the 9-11 report provides no details on how such analysis was done--and importantly, the report makes no mention of analyzing events in terms of the August 6th White House memo. In short, the 9-11 commission tried to find “needles in haystacks.”

Indeed, then it should be of no surprise that a comparison of trading specifically before and after August 6th, in terms of a number of normally independent indicators reveals more information, and illustrates an interesting and hitherto undiscovered convergence around the August 6th date. Incredibly, in this light, a major shift is visible in both market indicators, and in business announcements subsequent to the supposedly “ignored” warning memo.

Take for example, the stock of Halliburton Corporation, known so well for its association with US Vice President Dick Cheney. It plummeted on high volume immediately after the memo--previously having closely followed its own sector up until August 6th. Moreover, this divergence was punctuated not only by the date of August 6th, but was also underscored by a September 10th 2001 contract award to Halliburton. Astonishingly, on September 10th, 2001, the news read “Halliburton Unit Picked to Participate in Program to Reduce Threat of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Source: Halliburton)

Click here to read about Sep 10, 2001 Halliburton WMD project award

But the September 11th “clairvoyance” didn’t stop at Halliburton. After the memo, signs began bleeding into the stock market at large. The stock market volatility index (the “VIX”), a measure of market fear, suddenly shot up after the August 6th memo. By September 10th 2001, the VIX index sharply spiked up forty-five percent--to a level in line with the Asian financial crisis. Yet, in the Asian crisis case, news of disaster was already out in the open, which contrasts sharply with environment of September 10th, 2001--when bad news wasn’t out. Remarkably, then, it’s fair to conclude certain stock market investors knew a crisis was going to happen--the day before. In effect, the VIX, while normally independent of Halliburton stock, suddenly moved in lockstep with Halliburton.

Next, in line with the spike in the VIX, yet another indicator foretold September 11th. The put/call stock options ratio--a measure of sophisticated investors betting on a market fall--peaked twice, to a level over one. First, the ratio peaked for the very options transition period immediately after the White House memo, and before September 11th (which crested on August 17th) and next, it peaked on September 10th, the day before the strike. Once again, the put/call ratio moves correspond with Halliburton steps and the August 6th and September 10th dates. Finally, at least one close associate of Mr. Cheney made a business move on September 10th.

What’s incredible is how many signs point to the fact that the White House knew about September 11th in advance, and leaked. Clearly, not one but at least five pieces of evidence exist. The evidence of the unusual stock pattern of Halliburton after the White House warning memo, the special advance timing of the Halliburton WMD contract, the VIX and put/call indicators, and more, showed the White House leaked the September 11th warning to a select few. But alas, no real actions were taken to defend the American people. No, instead, actions were taken to defend Halliburton stockholders and a select few, and further, to enhance their profits.

The simplified charts below show how Halliburton stock turned on high volume when the memo hit the White House; the memo is illustrated by the line bisecting the graphs.

A large, comprehensive graphic is shown, illustrating all the patterns converging around the August 6th memo:

Click here for LARGE CHART showing MONEY TRAIL TO WHITE HOUSE

Footnotes: 1) “The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature.” (9-11 report, chapter 8)

(Dan Spillane is a computer scientist living in Seattle, Washington, who also studies economics, pure science, and politics. Working with Bev Harris in 2002 and early 2003, he exposed problems related to electronic voting systems certification and Diebold; this set the stage for discussion of the issue at the national level.)

(Audrey Mantey is an instructor at an arts academy in Michigan. She worked in US military intelligence/counterintelligence for over a decade.)

www.libertywhistle.us

[JackRiddler]

14. keep it kicked

[heliarc]

15. WTC Lease out

People also forget that the WTC had just been leased by the Port Authority to a private real estate entrepreneur 3 weeks before the attacks. Then the entrepreneur proceeded to push out the Architect chosen by the people to rebuild in favor of his own architect who wanted a 2000 ft structure to increase radio transmission strength and saleable square footage. Mediation between the city and the deign team was handled by a close friend of Bush's (Reference PBS Frontline).

While this may not suggest foul play, it certainly lends some more credence to the theory that there were real interests in laying the towers to waste and starting over again with insurance money that could produce a tower with a much higher earning potential.

Heliarc.

[BernieBear]

17. Don't forget the puts on AA and United

Insider trading, someone made very big money buying puts on AA and United just prior to Sept. 11th.

26. My findings are in addition to the airline puts...

[newyawker99]

27. Hi heliarc!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[illuminaughty]

18. Isn't it amazing what people refuse to believe?

I've studied this since Oct. 2001 when Thierry Meysam came out with his book in Europe and of course the U.S. media was shocked anyone could suggest such things.

Three years later, I can't understand how anyone could accept the official story if they spent just one evening reading some of the info.

They can't imagine our government killing it's own civilians? Wow! Study some real American history and you will become a believer.
Collateral damage is no big deal especially to thesse current PNAC criminals.

Every month that goes by I think that this will be the one where this story will hit the mainstream. And I'm still hoping.

[RATM]

19. If any of you get a chance....

watch the video The truth and lies of 9/11 by Michael Ruppert

www.fromthewilderness.com

Its a must see!!!

[illuminaughty]

23. I just bought "Crossing the Rubicon"

I was just on "From the Wilderness" site the other day. I'll have to check that out. Thanks.

[newyawker99]

28. Hi RATM!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[WoodrowFan]

20. no

it's amazing what idiocy people DO believe. bye bye

[illuminaughty]

22. Do the homework

And join the majority of the world.

[noamnety]

21. Bob Kerrey's interview last night

confirmed it.

[seemslikeadream]

24. Paula Zahn/Bob Kerrey: 9/11 panel sworn to secrecy for campaign

from DireStrike in GD

Yeah, Olberman was on at the time...

Apparently he made some jaw dropping revelations!

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?showto...


http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/08/pzn.01.html

To quote a person from that thread: This is the basic transcript but the tone and emphasis in what Kerrey said is not evident. You had to see it to know how firm and positive he was.


ZAHN: And joining me now, a Democrat who has served as both a governor and U.S. senator. Bob Kerrey also was a member of the 9/11 Commission and is now president of the New School University here in New York.

You better not do much more, because I can barely get that all into the introduction.

BOB KERREY (D), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: That's it. That's it.

ZAHN: Welcome back.

KERREY: Thank you.

ZAHN: I wanted to start off tonight by talking about the role that faith and the evangelical vote played in the reelection of President Bush.

And one of your former colleagues, Senator Hart, wrote quite pointedly about that issue in an editorial today. And he said -- quote -- "It should concern us that declarations of faith are quickly becoming a condition for seeking public office. Declarations of faith are abstractions that permit both voters and candidates to fill in the blanks with their own religious beliefs."

He thinks that's dangerous. Do you?

KERREY: Well, it can be if you don't understand the importance of keeping the government secular, so that you can practice whatever religion you want.

(CROSSTALK) ZAHN: Do you fear that's going to happen the second go-round of the Bush administration?

KERREY: Well, I think it's not likely, but it's potentially there.

When the president stood up at a faith-based initiative program and said, we don't need a rule book, we just need the good book, and held up a Bible, that was a mistake. That sends a signal that the New Testament is going to be the rule of law. And it cannot be. We have got to keep that separation, so that we can practice our religion, whatever our religion is. Or if we choose not to practice a religion, we can choose that as well in this country.

ZAHN: So what do you think is going to be the defining moment for the president when it comes to whether in fact he rules by the good book or rules more...

(CROSSTALK)

KERREY: Well, I think it actually could become this same-sex marriage amendment.

Look, my religious belief causes me to conclude that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both natural states, that God put gay and straight on this Earth alike. And it's taken us a while to come to terms with that, but that's my religious belief. It's an article of faith. It's not based on science or a political calculation.

And, as a consequence, I find myself saying any church that wants to deny a right for a man and a man to get married, that's fine with them. The Catholic Church won't let me get married in the church, even though I would prefer it, because I won't have my first marriage annulled. But marriage is a legal issue as well. And just as the government shouldn't tell the church what to do, the church shouldn't tell the government what to do.

And I fear that's what this is all about, as well as people not really understanding that homosexuality is a state that people acquire at birth. It's not a choice that's been made.

ZAHN: Well, a lot of Americans don't think it's an article of faith according to their own religious convictions.

(CROSSTALK)

KERREY: They need to hear Democrats say -- this isn't a political calculus. This isn't us trying to put together a coalition.

It's just as important a religious belief of mine as it is those who say I'm uncomfortable with same-sex marriage. I think it is in fact a natural state. It was a question that was asked during the debate and I think answered improperly. That was the one where John went on about the vice president's daughter. That set off a wave of anger, etcetera, rather than focusing on the question, which is, do you choose it or are you born that way? And Americans need to understand that. I think the president understands that. The question is, will he push that as a religious issue?

ZAHN: The former president, President Clinton, in a piece over the weekend suggested John Kerry lost for a number of reasons, particularly because he didn't think John Kerry connected in rural America with voters, particularly on moral issues, including the issue of gay marriage, and went on to say the Republicans had a clear message and a great messenger, that they used a culture war to leave the Democrats -- quote -- "demonized, cartoonized, as aliens."

Did they not understand the culture war going on in this country?

(CROSSTALK)

KERREY: President Clinton never faced an opponent as tough as George W. Bush. His father wasn't as tough and Bob Dole wasn't as tough.

George W. Bush is a very tough campaigner. He is an intuitive politician. He's an incumbent president. And he was an exceptionally difficult person for John Kerry under the best of circumstances.

ZAHN: Was John Kerry an intuitive campaigner?

KERREY: He's not as intuitive a politician as George Bush is. I mean, George W. Bush's father isn't as intuitive. I'm not as intuitive.

George Bush knows when to kiss the baby. And that's a hard thing to teach. In fact, it's an impossible thing to teach. He's very good on the street and he's good with the message. His message was, I will keep you safe, and the other guy won't. And when you are the incumbent, it's a much higher standard for an opponent to prove that you're wrong. So...

ZAHN: The American public, by and large, didn't think John Kerry was the guy to do that.

KERREY: That's correct, because the president had a case, a very simple case to make: I am the commander in chief. I won the war in Afghanistan, even though John Kerry supported it, even though, by the way, there's a credible case that the president's own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.

ZAHN: How so?

KERREY: Well, the 9/11 report says in chapter eight -- now that it's beyond the campaign, so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over.

The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport country, didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people.

The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn't made.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: But what we continue to hear from this administration is that the threat was much too diffuse. There was no way you could zero in on the fact that al Qaeda was going to use jets as bombs and ram them into buildings.

KERREY: That is a straw man.

The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That's what he said.

Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat.

And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress.

But the report, I think, it's difficult for a challenger. If I had been the challenger, it's difficult to make that case when you are running against an incumbent. He can stand back and say, oh, you're just grousing.

ZAHN: Oh, we couldn't connect the dots is what we heard.

Final question for you sir. In Falluja...

KERREY: Yes.

ZAHN: There are some Democrats that suggest that this incursion was delayed until after the election because of the vulnerability of the U.S. troops and this could be a very bloody campaign. Where do you stand?

KERREY: Oh, I think it's likely it was delayed until after the election. And it's probably a smart thing to do. This is as much a political battle inside of Iraq as it is a military battle. And everybody knows that who has talked to people that's over there. So I think it's likely that it was.

ZAHN: Bob Kerrey, thanks for dropping by.

KERREY: You're welcome. Nice to see you.

ZAHN: Always appreciate your perspective.

more
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2646325&mesg_id=2646325

[Sterling]

25. kick

for truth

[graphixtech]

30. more information here

9/11 RICO Lawsuit, also naming Diebold (and other voting machine companies) as defendants:
E. THE ENTERPRISE HAS ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY
TO COMMIT ELECTION FRAUD.
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint10b.htm

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

[JackRiddler]

31. kick kick