Is your head still in the sand?

[RBHam]

When will YOU finally get it?

Caught in their own lies

9/11 Commission admits excluding intelligence on lead hijacker, Atta
By Joseph Kay and Barry Grey
12 August 2005,wsws.org

A spokesman for the September 11 commission acknowledged on Wednesday that members of its staff met with a uniformed military officer on July 12, 2004 and that the officer informed them that a military intelligence group had, as early as the summer of 2000, identified Mohammad Atta as part of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. Atta is thought to have been the lead hijacker in the September 11 attacks.

This admission flatly contradicts statements made earlier this week by 9/11 Chairman Thomas Kean and Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton that the commission staff was never told of the military intelligence on Atta.

According to an August 11 New York Times article, the officer warned the commission staff “that the account would be incomplete” without reference to the military intelligence group and its findings.

In the commission’s report, issued on July 22, 2004—10 days after the meeting where staff members were briefed on the Atta intelligence—no mention was made of the information gathered by Able Danger, the name of the military intelligence group.

(snip)
The American media continues to bury the revelations. After its front-page article breaking the story on Tuesday, the New York Times has placed its follow-up articles on its inside pages. Wednesday’s article was on page 13 and Thursday’s on page 14. Other newspapers have hardly mentioned it. The only article to appear so far in the Washington Post has been a five paragraph Associated Press story on Wednesday. The broadcast network evening news programs continue to ignore the story.

More on what a sham American Democracy has become...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/able-a12.shtml

[SpiralHawk]

1. BushCo MIHOP

D'oh

I'd bet My Pet Goat on it.

[lady lib]

22. I'd bet the goat and the entire "ranch"

:grr:

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I been a Mihoper for ages. Wish we could get others to wake up

[OneBlueSky]

3. well, we know one of three things is true . . .

either BushCo let it happen . . .

or they facilitated it . . .

or they made it happen . . .

at this point, it doesn't even matter which one is true . . . they're ALL treasonous offenses . . .

[Beam Me Up]

11. Incompetence is their BEST defense!

Can you believe that? NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE EVENTS OF 9/11. In fact, many people in key positions on that day have been PROMOTED!! And the American people have been letting them get away with this for four years.

It's time this charade came to an end. "Though the heavens fall..."

[BrotherBuzz]

4. Can you say whitewash?

I understand the 9-11 widows are a little pissed off, too. I wonder if they should stage a Cindy Sheehan type event to bring attention to some questions that need to be answered. So many questions, so few answers these days....

[BelgianMadCow]

9. "Stage a Cindy Sheehan type of event" - YES

great idea!

[BrotherBuzz]

10. Where?

Ground Zero? Where could they stage it legally and still draw attention from the MSM?

[BelgianMadCow]

13. Well, since the preznit is occupied :-) , you would have to look at

some of the most pertinent questions to be asked and go ask them of someone else.

Choose a tough question and choose someone who is unlikely to confront it. Then camp in his yard.

I do not know what is THE question re 9/11 I must confess.

Maybe go and ask poppy Bush what he was doing with Bin Laden family members in a Carlyle meeting on 9/11, and how much the Carlyle group portfolio has risen in the past couple of years.

The question itself kinda provides the answer to Cindy's "noble cause" question.

[Karenina]

5. Kick!

:kick:

[Al-CIAda]

6. Daniel Hopsicker - M. Atta & the 9.11 Coverup in Florida

 Daniel Hopsicker - M. Atta & the 9.11 Coverup in Florida

Windows-
http://www.madcowprod.com/vfcwmv.html
Quicktime-
http://www.madcowprod.com/vfcqt.html
---
Site-
http://www.madcowprod.com/

[MrSammo1]

20. Anybody smell fish?

[seemslikeadream]

7. Remote control since 1984

www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery...index.html

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov.nyud.net:8090/Gallery/Photo/CID/Small/ECN-31803.jpg

"Before the final flight on December 1, 1984, more then four years of effort passed trying to set-up final impact conditions considered survivable by the FAA. During those years while 14 flights with crews were flown the following major efforts were underway: NASA Dryden developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the B-720 to fly as a drone aircraft; General Electric installed and tested four degraders (one on each engine); and the FAA refined AMK (blending, testing, and fueling a full size aircraft). The 14 flights had 9 takeoffs, 13 landings and around 69 approaches, to about 150 feet above the prepared crash site, under remote control. "

[Al-CIAda]

8. August 12,2005 -Daniel Hopsicker

August 12,2005-Venice, FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker


The importance of this week’s revelation that an Army intelligence unit was tracking Mohamed Atta’s movements in the U.S. during 1999 and 2000 is so mind-boggling that it seems nobody quite gets it yet...

You’ve been hearing it for three years in articles in the MadCowMorningNews, and in “Welcome to TerrorLand.”

Now you can hear it from an elite Army intelligence unit, one with at least several patriots with very large cojones. Their testimony is clear, explicit, and uncompromisingly contradicts the FBI's official story. Only one conclusion can be drawn from it...

The FBI has been telling a massive lie to the 9.11 Commission and the American people, a lie whose result has been to halt in its tracks, as a Commission spokesman freely admitted on Thursday, the investigation into the murder of almost 3000 people.

People go to jail for that sort of thing, don’t they?

God willing, we may be about to find out.
----
Full Detailed article-
http://www.madcowprod.com/08122005.html

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. Remote controlled and able to do large amounts of damage too....

March 22, 2005
U.S. Military wants more Predator Drones
Quietly, unmanned aerial drones have been performing brilliantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and commanders from nearly every branch are requesting more. With many low intensity and small conflict battlegrounds, the unmanned drones have played a critical role in gathering intelligence and maping out areas of operation. In Fallujah, unmanned drones put in over 1,000 hours above the city, gathering intelligence for the pending assault. Recently the hand held Raven has been yeilding positive reviews.

[RedSock]

14. the best thing you can say

The best thing you can say about the Junta -- that puts them in the best possible light -- is that they knew *exactly* what was going to happen on 9/11 and didn't do a damn thing to stop it.

That's the kindest spin you can put on their actions.

[mirandapriestly]

15. So...the FBI didn't want people to know that Atta was here before 2000

what is the significance of that?
and what about that interview with Johnelle Bryant? Her meeting with Atta sounded hokey to me.

[Independent_Liberal]

16. My head isn't in the sand.

I'm wide awake.

:)

[MercutioATC]

17. No, but it's not up my ass, either.

I've seen a lot of circumstantial "evidence" but NOTHING (even after nearly four years) in the way of actual proof that the government had a direct hand in the events of 9/11.

[Rich Hunt]

18. good for you

I disagree with the "if it's not our side, it must be their side" assessment.

I think people misunderstand how the US, and the world, operates. If something goes wrong, they blame government institutions. It's in the right-wing's interests to undermine people's faith in government, especially with regard to domestic affairs. They know this, too - they've been working on this for years.

[stickdog]

19. If something "goes wrong" with our national air defense, who do you

suggest we blame? Canada?

[petgoat]

24. Who do we blame? That dang socialistic military of course!!! What do you

expect from a bunch of lazy shovel-leaning communists?

Privatize the military, that's what I say! Put the national defense out
to bid every five years. That's the American Way!

;>)

[Henny Penny]

40. This is a reply to mercutio...

sorry rich but mercutio seems to have some magic shield protecting him from my witty repost....

"Were you on the Michael Jackson jury perchance???"

:rofl:

[MercutioATC]

49. This is an answer from Mercutio...

I'm a little confused. "magic shield"?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Henny Penny]

52. sometimes when i hit reply the original post comes up but the reply

option is missing.... nothing particular to you, just an explanation as to why my reply was to the next post down and not the more relevant one.

[MercutioATC]

58. Gotcha.

:hi:

[Henny Penny]

59. ah your shield is gone....

:crazy:

;-)

[MercutioATC]

63. That happens sometimes...

:)

:hi:

[Informed Citizen]

23. No deductive thinking???

Mercutio,

The fact that you feel proof is required implies to me that you may not understand the process of deductive reasoning that is the basis of any criminal investigation. In order to make a case, or prosecute a criminal you must be able to provide the means, motive, and opportunity to commit a crime. This has nothing to do with definative proof, something the 9/11 truth movement does not require in order to promote further investigation. This deductive review involves gathering many facts from different sources, and proposing that if each of these three areas seems reasonably well established, that an investigation or criminal case should ensue. There is a great degree of evidence, far more sound than circumstantial, which more than adequately makes the case that specific people were responsible for what happened that day, and were either coincidentally incompetant on mass, or taking intentional actions. Either possibility should invite investigation and prosecution for criminal negligence, or worse. I assert that this manner of thought is the democratic approach, and must be recognized and promoted.

- I.C.

[MercutioATC]

25. Means, motive and opportunity? OBL had all three (plus a confession).

PLUS a history of attacks against U.S. interests.

I haven't seen ONE CT that stood up to scrutiny. Most are based on incorrect facts (like AAL77 flew to Kansas before it turned around), imprecise evidence (trying to second-guess first-hand observers using a handful of smoke-obscured photos), poor understanding of the mechanics involved (the WTC planes shouldn't have been able to penetrate the outer walls so easily), or simple lunacy (pods, fuel sprayers, passenger switching between planes, etc.)

Combined with people who intentionally distort data to make a quick buck (VonKleist and his ilk), there are thousands of people who are in an uproar over what amounts, essentially, to nothing.

There ARE valid concerns such as NORAD's response time and why we weren't more prepared if we had some advance warning (no matter how vague). The vast majority of the rest of it is of very little value, though.

Just my .02

[seatnineb]

26. Wrong.

As a reaction to Osama's motive for killin' 250 Kenyans(and several American diplomats) in 1998..........

The U.S bombed Afghanistan and Sudan.

As a reaction to Osama's motive for doin' 9/11.....

The U.S bombed Iraq and Afghanistan......

Any 2 bit fuck wit would realize that attackin' U.S interests on the kind of scale of 9/11 would have triggered a crushing responese from the U.S apparatus.........

Fact is that Osama has been directly and indirectly serving U.S/Saudi /Israely interests for 25 years.

Period.

[MercutioATC]

27. Sorry, I don't agree.

OBL will always come in second in any military test. Any "2-bit fuck wit" would realize this. That's not a terrorist's goal.

I'd argue that OBL was more successful than even he could forsee. He took what was arguably the most powerful nation on earth and reduced it to a paranoid, internationally loathed country that's restricting the freedons of its own people and spending more money than it can afford.

...and, despite the hundreds of billions we spend, Al-Qaeda lives on.

Our "crushing response"? Please.....

:eyes:

[seatnineb]

28. Wrong.

In the words of Osama:




As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him.

God is great and glory to Islam.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1585636.stm

Thanks to Osama's actions "the Infedel"(U.S)....left "the land of Mohammed"(Saudi Arabia) only to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq!

...and at the cost of who knows how many innocent Afghans and Iraqi lives....

By the way.....a small American military contingent has remained in Saudi Arabia.

[MercutioATC]

32. You're assuming OBL and you see the world the same way.

Do you really think that he believes the U.S. will leave "the land of Mohammed" any time soon? Of course not.

He's an intelligent man. His goal (IMO) is much longer-term. Knowing that he doesn't have anything close to superior military strength (thus, no chance of realizing his goals any time soon), he's content to whittle away at us slowly...and it's working.

We spent a lot of time and money and lives in Vietnam. We didn't leave just because people started dying...it took time. We finally just gave up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the "commies" win that one?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to learn from the past. Actually, I think OBL has done one hell of a job maneuvering us into the exact place he wants us. He has us set up for another Vietnam-style situation with the added benefit of making us international pariahs in the process.

Hell, maybe I AM wrong. It makes perfect sense to me, though...

[seatnineb]

34. The Bin laden mythology makes no sense..........

If Bin Laden was the real deal.......what stopped him from attackin' the Unocal pipeline trainin' facility in Kandahar in 1997?

Now Unacol agreed to pay $900.000 via the university of Nebraska to set up a Unacol training facility on a fifty-six-acre site in Kandahar,not far from Bin Laden's compound.

From the book:
Ghost Wars.
Page 364.

[MercutioATC]

35. Are you serious?

The fact that he didn't attack a pipeline training facility has that much weight to you?

A question:

Do you really believe that he (or other terrorists) wouldn't carry out terrorist acts against the U.S. unless they somehow do so with covert U.S. approval because they fear reprisals?

[seatnineb]

37. The Unacol project had the backing of the state department.

If the U.S would retaliate(against Aghanistan and Sudan) for an attack on foreign soil(Kenya in 98').......what would they do if you attacked the U.S on their own soil(9/11)?.

You know the answer aswell as I do.

But Osama(an intelligent man as you say) didn't.

Yeah right!

Osama's story is pure bullshit.

[MercutioATC]

41. Of COURSE he knew (or strongly expected).

That's what I've been saying.

But let's look at the outcome of this unleashing of America's fury....

1) OBL is still at large.

2) Al-Qaeda is still blowing things up.

3) The U.S. has become in international pariah.

4) We're involved in a war we can't win that's costing us hundreds of billions of dollars.

5) Our populace is scared.

6) Out populace is scared to the point that we'll allow our freedoms - the very principles this country was founded upon - to be grossly impinged upon.


Oh, yeah...we're occupying Afghanistan. Do you think OBL (or any terrorist) would really CARE about us occupying Afghanistan, especially with our track record of installing governments and having to go to war with them 10 years later?

OBL won. It's that simple. One of the primary reasons is that he thinks past immediate results (which neither Bush nor you seem to do).

[spooked911]

43. We got Iraq's oil. That is a pretty big prize. Also---

A scared populace giving up their rights benefits Bush/the US government too.

Not catching OBL perpetuates the war and keeps people scared.

Al Qaeda blowing things up perpetuates the war and keeps people scared.

I don't think Bush cares if we are an international pariah-- in any case, that is somewhat overblown. When we are big and powerful, we set the agenda. We control the UN. It doesn't matter if the rest of the world doesn't like us.

Occupying Afghanistan gives us great access to the heroin trade, and poppy production has shot up since the Taliban fell, what a coincidence.

So-- I think both Bush and OBL won, and that they are working together.

[MercutioATC]

50. It's difficult to reply to different posters - the argument keeps changing

I'll grant you that Bush and his friends have gained from the Iraq war. They should have...they've been planning it since way before 9/11...

I still don't see that as proof of either the idea that OBL is still working for the U.S. government or that OBL didn't gain a LOT from 9/11.

[seatnineb]

55. And Osama knew Bush would benefit from 9/11 n/t

[MercutioATC]

64. OBLs target isn't Bush, it's the United States.

Bush may have experienced a short-term gain personally, but the U.S. is damaged long-term. Given the goal of hurting the U.S., I can't think of a way to do it without Bush being able to use it to benefit himself.

[seatnineb]

68. What is Bin Laden's objective then?

June 13, 2001 -- International security forces are working furiously to thwart a plot by Saudi terror master Osama bin Laden to assassinate President Bush and other world leaders at a major economic summit next month.

Source: N.Y. Post
Published: June 13, 2001 Author: By NILES LATHEM and ALLAN HALL

[seatnineb]

54. I understand where you are comin' from Mercutio.....

Bin Laden claims to be fighting for the Muslim cause!

And yet Mercutio wrote:
Al-Quida is still blowing things up

Indeed they are......but it is more a question of who they are blowin' up.

They killed 50 fellow Muslims at the Eygptian resort a few weeks back.

In Iraq "suicide bombers" kill Iraqi "Muslim" civillians and police officers alike......

Even the bombs in London on 7/7 were detonated in 2 heavily Muslim populated areas of London(Edgware and Aldgate).

And post 9/11 you can add Mombassa,Casablanca,Istanbul,Karachi,Riad and Bali to that list where the majority of victims have just been poor people tring to make a living for themselves.



So much for this grade A bullshit:

Like Bin Laden,Al-Zawahiri believed that it was time for Jihadists to carry the war to "the distant enemy" because,once provoked,the Americans would probably reply with revenge attacks and "personally wage the battle against the Muslims",which would make them ripe for a clear-cutJihad against infedels

From the Book:
Ghost Wars.
By Steve Coll.
Page 382-383

But Bin Laden is harming(both directly and indirectly) the very people he is claiming to defend(Muslims)

[StrafingMoose]

57. All things described here...

"1) OBL is still at large.

2) Al-Qaeda is still blowing things up.

3) The U.S. has become in international pariah.

4) We're involved in a war we can't win that's costing us hundreds of billions of dollars.

5) Our populace is scared.

6) Out populace is scared to the point that we'll allow our freedoms - the very principles this country was founded upon - to be grossly impinged upon"


Is exactly what the PNACers wanted. OBL at large, fine! No one can ask him questions! Al-Qeada is still blowing stuff? Fine! The spectre of our enemy is still alive and well! We will be able to intervene everywhere in the world blaming this very enemy. The US has become an international pariah? Fine! Even more enemies. Our populace is scared? Greats, let's slap in Patriot Act I, II, II.5! Involved in a war that costs billions! GREAT! More money out of tax payers' dollar and they won't even whine about it since they're SCARED!.

Really, you should examine every of their talking points -- 9/11 really has provided all of them.

[petgoat]

61. Suicide Bombers

You have to consider the possibility that the anti-civilian bombings in
Iraq are not being done by the insurgents or by al Qaeda.

The fact is, it's the USA that benefits from them. The fiction that we
are protecting the Iraqis from such anarchic chaos (until their army can
be trained) is our only justification for being there. If we can keep
the country in a state of simmering civil war for twenty years that will
justify our management of the oil resource, and prevent any real Iraqi
government from taking power.

It would be easy to plant a bomb in a civilian's car, and detonate it by
radio control from a safe distance behind.

We don't know who bombed the UN in Iraq (so they left) and we don't know
who's doing the suicide attacks.

[StrafingMoose]

62. Yes I agree

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a farce, and the Iraqis know it too.

Hell, they don't even need remote control. Just dress some CIA/Mossad/Saudi/ISI trained mobs as Iraqi soldiers, have them arrest some guy in his car at some checkpoint, interogate him for 15mins while you're setting up a timebomb in his car trunk, et voila! Who could investigate seriously in such chaos anyways? The people generating chaos are playing right into the hands of people wanting to perform such operations for psyops/smearing purposes by creating an ambience which facilitate terrorism (whoever wants to use it).

[seatnineb]

70. Agreed!

:toast:

[seatnineb]

69. Agreed!

:toast:

[Informed Citizen]

29. Conspiracy theories

Mercutio,

Until this week, and the 'Able Danger' revelations, something I have known about with fewer specifics for months, most people outside this forum would consider any statement about prior warnings to be nothing more than a conspiracy theory. You appear to have disdain for those who would explore the edges of accepted reality while you yourself are willing to step some way over that line. Make up your mind. And know the truth for yourself. It resides in your ability and willingness to become more open and specific in your thinking and approach. I am highly intellectual in nature, and possibly more rigorous in my vetting of the facts than you, and yet I have come to believe that the preponderance of the evidence points to people in the government lying about their involvement. That doesn't mean that I know exactly what they did. But I do know for a fact that the commission report is full of errors and omissions, and that the Bush administration has a history of avoidance and lying that extends far into this subject. Do you doubt this? I appreciate your scrutiny, as I am equally upset at people's willingness to support vacant theories. But it sounds to me like you could benefit from being a bit more skeptical regarding the intentions of those in power, and focusing your literacy toward learning more about "American" history, the history of war for empire, and maybe the ascent of human reason due to the evolution of our frontal cortex.

As far a Osama is concerned, I think than you likely have far less information that you imply regarding his means, and opportunity. Needless to say, at present his motives and culpability remain a mystery. The fact that you have not found any valid evidence of anyone else being a likely accomplice or perpetrator implies either that you haven't looked very hard, or that you are unwilling to connect the dots. And there are a lot of people with a whole bunch of social depencencies that refuse to do so. As I said, we aren't looking for proof, but there are many facts. Osama did not likely, as in small percentage of likelihood, have the means or opportunity to pull off the attack in terms of the access that would have been required to, for example, disable the Pentagons anti aircraft missile batteries. How do you interact with that fact. I suspect that they were disabled as a result of the wargames that day. But the facts of these wargames are as much a 'conspiracy theory' to most. Do you see what is happening? How that term serves to cancel the consideration of fact by suggesting that it is fiction. Make up your mind. Where is your line in the sand? (Can't stand VonKleist either) Which facts must you be compelled not to ignore? I'd love to hear your theory about how Osama caused WTC7 to collapse. Do you know the official theory? Isn't skepticism more logical that blind faith in the conflicted individuals who have 'officially' investigated the matter? Or do you have your own theory. And once again, how many would stigmatize you for these assertions of yours.

Finally, there is a long history of proven conspiracy theories to examine. Before you go and try to further stigmatize this inquiry with the use of that term, you may want to investigate further the number of times that the government, military, and intelligence services in this country have taken secret action against the popular will. Don't forget that the 'official' version of events is an accepted conspiracy theory. The term is functional and not to be used as derogatory. I am a conspiracy theorist. I'm also a truth activist.

- I.C.

[petgoat]

31. Good Post, IC

Interesting connection of dots between the Pentagon SAMs and the war
games.

The only authority I have found for the presence of these missiles is
that John Judge claims he saw them in the center court in the 1950's and
that when he was casing the place in preparing for a demonstration in
the late '90's a Pentagon employee told him that the Pentagon was
defended against people who wanted to fly into the building.

Do you know of any other information that supports the belief that the
Pentagon was defended with SAMs?

"Social depencencies" is a term new to me, and interesting.

[MercutioATC]

33. You bring up a few very valid points.

I think I may have inadequately explained my thoughts.

I fully realize that the Commission's report is full of omissions. The simple fact is there most likely is not one member of the commission that has the same exposure to 9/11 facts/theories/rumors to most of the people on this forum. I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of them aren't aware of many of the errors and ommissions...primarily because they don't have a great understanding of the issues or the facts.

I work for the federal government. I don't state that in attempt to gain credibility, but as an explanation of where my opinions originate. I've seen the ineptitude and inefficient systems firsthand. I truly believe that these flaws are responsible for the majority of the events of 9/11. Not intent, incompetence.


To deal with a couple of other minor issues:

1) I don't believe there was a missile defense system in place at the Pentagon on 9/11. I've seen nothing that supports this contention.

2) I don't mean "CT" as a derogatory term. I believe it's accurate. It describes a "theory" involving a "conspiracy" (in this case a conspiracy perpetuated by our government). I think that's an accurate label.

I do believe that asking questions is important and I do have issues that I'd like clarified. I've also seen just how poorly most bureaucracies are managed. I'm sceptically, but I haven't seen anything yet that constitutes (to me) the contention that the basics of the "official story" aren't basically correct.

[Frederik]

45. al-Qa'ida

From Scott Horton's latest interview with Sibel Edmonds:

"These sort of people from NSA, CIA, FBI. And we provided the public during this press conference with a list of witnesses that had provided direct information, direct information. Some had to do with finance of al-Qaeda. These are people from NSA, CIA, and FBI to the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission omitted all of this information, even though some of this information had been established as fact. One of them had to do with certain informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the attacks. The other had to do with certain information the FBI had in July and August 2001, where blueprints and building composites of certain skyscrapers were being sent to certain Middle Eastern countries, and many more information was just omitted."

"Even after Sept. 11, covering up these investigations and not pursuing some of these investigations because the Department of State says, "You know what, you can't pursue this because that may deal with this particular country. If this country that the investigation deals with are not one of the Axis of Evil, we don't want to pursue them." The American people have the right to know this. They are giving this grand illusion that there are some investigations, but there are none. You know, they are coming down on these charities as the finance of al-Qaeda. Well, if you were to talk about the financing of al-Qaeda, a very small percentage comes from these charity foundations. The vast majority of their financing comes from narcotics. Look, we had 4 to 6 percent of the narcotics coming from the East, coming from Pakistan, coming from Afghanistan via the Balkans to the United States. Today, three or four years after Sept. 11, that has reached over 15 percent. How is it getting here? Who are getting the proceedings from those big narcotics?"

"OK, you're looking at Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and these are the countries that now we are busy establishing bases in. And a large portion of their GDP depends on narcotics, and there is a huge al-Qaeda presence in their countries. We don't hear anything about Balkan countries, and again, their direct ties and direct relevance to al-Qaeda. They are not even naming these countries. The role that Pakistan played before and the role that Pakistan is playing today. So, as I have said before, there are several countries, there are several organizations, and you can't just isolate one country or one organization."


http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=7032

I think "al-Qaida" did 9/11, but they were helped by their friends inside the gates, who, among other things, scheduled wargames mirroring the scenario of 9/11 on that very day. I also think the real "al-Qaida" is something very different from the media caricature of the "mad Arabs who live in caves". Notably in their connection to the global drugs trade. A great reference is Loretta Napoleoni's "Terror Inc", she has been studying terrorism financing for ten years or so.

[StrafingMoose]

30. The OBL "confession" is null & void...

even the FBI don't think this "proof" is strong enough to indict him of conspiring in the destruction of the WTC towers apprently;

"MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH"

"USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."

Where's 9/11 mention? Were WTC1-2 considered as "federal facility" ?


http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

[MercutioATC]

36. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion.

That doesn't mean the FBI didn't believe he did a lot of other things...

[StrafingMoose]

38. Re

The FBI didn't indict Bin Laden of 9/11 because they don't have the proof, period. Perhaps because they were obstructed from above? In regards to OBL's "confessions" I mean, if you're to beleive OBL is a crook and a liar, keep this in mind ALL the time.

[MercutioATC]

39. You can substiantiate that?

Do tell...

[StrafingMoose]

46. What's "that" ?

[Henny Penny]

42. mmmm... perhaps we can get Bushco on tax evasion...

it won't of course mean that we don't think they've done a lot of other stuff tho...

If you're going to be consistent you have to think that Al was no more than a tax dodger. Leave it to us :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
to a construct a plausible theory regarding his other nefarious deeds.

[MercutioATC]

44. I am being consistent and I think Al did a lot more than not pay taxes.

My point is that, regardless of the evidence of other offenses, the FBI chose to use tax evasion to bring Capone down. It didn't mean that they didn't believe he did more. It didn't mean that they didn't have evidence that he did more. It meant that it was a slam-dunk case that would get them the desired results.

In OBL's case, do you think that murdering U.S. citizens NOT on U.S. soil carries a lesser penalty then murdering U.S. citizens ON U.S. soil? If not, what difference does it make?

This is a complete non-issue.

[StrafingMoose]

47. The war on terror wasn't declared...

after the embassy bombing in Africa, rather after 9/11. And quite quickly if you ask me. The difference it makes is that the Bush administration moved on with this war with 9/11 as main reason, when the FBI doesn't even mention these attacks in OBL's profile. It is a glaring inconsistency! Not necesarilly hiding an ugly conspiracy (ie: OMFG Bush did it!!!11), but is IS inconsistent with the official story that OBL did it and that we have to go after his global-reach network that's repeated everyday in the MSM.

OK, maybe the FBI is hiding all the evidences that OBL did it and they are being SOOO secretive about it that they don't list the 9/11 attacks in OBL's profile. But ... that's a conspiracy theory! :P

[MercutioATC]

48. I think you're reading too much into it...just my opinion.

If the FBI has existing charges serious enough to put OBL out of commission forever if he's apprehended, I don't see why they'd amend the charges based on a new event that's not been fully examined (9/11 evidence and reports are still being released).

What they have is more than enough. I'm sure that if OBL is ever brought to trial, he won't see the light of day again just based on the current indictments.

[StrafingMoose]

56. Absolutely...

But my only point is that his "confessions" that he did are not proofs of his involvement. Even the FBI seems to smell a rat on this one. Of course, I'm not trying to say that if OBL is innocent (or didn't play a main masterminding role), then no one's guilty.

After all, what OBL did in Afghanistan in the 80s was mostly money managing stuff. What if he was only the money man in 9/11? That would be new, according to what the MSM is playing daily.

You know, you've been trying to explain and downplay this inconsistency over and over with "they must...", "I don't think...", "I don't see why...". Fine if that's what you want to do. But if you really want to make things move, you've got to take _their_ own words and stick it against _their_ own other words and until THEY answer, well it's inconsistent. Don't assume things for them, that's their job.

But you said it yourself, there's no way they can be sure, it's not "been fully examined". IMO, the 9/11 Commission is out, and THAT's the official word about it.

[MercutioATC]

65. I agree with your premise - questions need to be asked,

discrepancies need to me explained.

I don't, however, think that the outstanding questions necessarily evidence a cover-up or direct government involvement.

[StrafingMoose]

66. LOL that's exactly what I meant...

" don't, however, think that the outstanding questions necessarily evidence a cover-up or direct government involvement"

I agree. It's there, inconsistent but by no means is proof of anything. It's just an evidence that shouldn't be there given what we are fed everyday by the MSM & BushCo.

[MercutioATC]

67. And I don't mean to soft-pedal that message...

There's just quite a few people here who say things like "The clocks in the building recorded a time that's THREE MINUTES different from the time in the government's report. IT'S A COVER-UP!!!"

It is absolutely important to question the discrepancies. I think most of them will be easily explainable, but we DO deserve the answers.

[Henny Penny]

53. In my view, everyone responsible for killing those

people on 911 should be brought to trial no matter where, or who, they are. Bin Laden may well be a mass murderer, but provide evidence and bring him to trial. You can't just say "it was him. He's disappeared... oh well..."

The US govt has provided no real evidence either because it does not exist or because they have not looked for it, knowing that in order to convict osama they might also expose members of the US admin/establishment.

We know Bin Laden worked for the cia in afghanistan in the 80's. Do we know he ever stopped working for them?

The 911 commission report is clearly a massive whitewash. We are looking at a US admin that is used to lying blatantly and having such a tight grip of the media, that it doesn't matter. People in the media may think privately "What a crock of shit..." But to say so publicly means the end of your career.

[demodewd]

71. infiltration

Let us remember that there is a distinct possibility that AlQaeda is sponsored by Western intelligence and Saudi money. This probability I would say is very high and certainly does implicate the possibility that Al qaeda not only has outside financial backing but is infiltrated by the CIA or the MI6 or the Mossad or whatever.I doubt that bin Laden is pulling off much without intelligence forewarning. And what is "bin Laden" doing today? Is he in retirement?

[petgoat]

72. "what is "bin Laden" doing today?"

I bet he's raking in a billion a year in the opium trade. According to
a study cited in Financial Times, under Taliban Osama was getting $600
million to $1 billion a year from it. Since the Afghan business is so
much greater now than it ever was under Taliban, $1 billion to $1.5
billion would be his proportional cut today. Per year.

How much do you think it would have cost to bribe the voting machine
programmers? Ten million? Fifty million? Al Qaeda could have bought
the 2004 election--they have that kind of money.

[petgoat]

73. And when he decides to sneak a dirty bomb into the country, it'll be

easy--he'll just hide it in the drugs!

[stickdog]

60. Insider neocons had much better means, far greater opportunity

and much more compelling motives.

Wouldn't you agree?

[lady lib]

21. RAWSTORY: 9/11 Commission's narrative is false (!)

~snip~

Essentially, Atta had entered the US three times on a tourist visa in 2001, although INS officials knew the visa had expired in 2000, and Atta had violated its terms by taking flight lessons. So Atta was illegal - and the Defense Department lawyers who blocked the FBI from accessing the Able Danger data were lying. So the question remains: why was the Able Danger report prevented by the DoD from circulating in the US intelligence community?

According to the 9/11 Commission report, Atta was not identified as a potential terrorist until after 9/11, and Almidhar and Alhamzi were only identified in late 1999 and 2000 by the CIA - but the FBI was apparently only notified in summer 2001. The Able Danger story demonstrates that the 9/11 Commission's narrative is false - reliable information that four al-Qaeda members were operating within a cell to plan a terrorist attack was available, but its circulation was inexplicably obstructed by the government.

The Able Danger story, however, is only the latest confirmation that the intelligence community had extensive information on many of the 9/11 hijackers years prior to 9/11.

The Miami Herald (6/7/02) reported that the National Security Agency had "monitored telephone conversations before Sept. 11 between the suspected commander of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the alleged chief hijacker." Anonymous NSA officials told the Herald that "the conversations between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed" - the operational mastermind of 9/11 - "and Mohamed Atta were intercepted", while Atta was in the US. How much was gleaned about the plot was not disclosed. But The Independent (9/15/02) reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "received a telephone call from Mohammed Atta on 10 September", in which he gave Atta "the final approval to launch the strikes." Like Able Danger, these facts were also apparently considered "historically irrelevant" by the Commission.

~snip~

LINK
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/WhitewashingProtection_of__0818.html

[philb]

51. What does the sparkle on this thread header mean? & Dr. Griffin's books

fully document that the 9/11 Commission Report was a farce with little attempt to investigate what really happened and inaccuracies and lies throughout.

Similarly
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html