CBS covers "9/11 conspiracy theories"

[delver]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/26/opinion/main885379.shtml

this article is a real piece of shit. the mainstream media is a joke. there is nothing mainstream about it: it is the propaganda wing of an elite minority who espouse totally illogical deceptions and illusions. fuck them. fuck them. fuck them.

CBS you are a joke. i bet Dan Rather knows 9/11 was an inside job. enough with the pathetic cover-jobs, you're really not fooling many people.

Let CBS know that this shit is not journalism.

END THE 9/11 MEDIA BLACKOUT
END THE 9/11 MEDIA BLACKOUT
END THE 9/11 MEDIA BLACKOUT

[LARED]

1. Give the guy that wrote that piece a little credit

he didn't call the CT'ers kooks and wacko's.

[Informed Citizen]

4. No, he called a congressperson a lunatic!

<"McKinney has long lived on the lunatic fringe of leftist politics. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, she claimed that President Bush was aware of "numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11," and that by doing nothing he and his cronies could "make huge profits off America's new war.">

The author is stating well supported hypotheses, and then implying that these well supported hypotheses, of grave concern to humanity, are simply a matter of consideration for the naive and insane.

I find the author's statements rather insulting and lacking in journalistic value. He forgets his station. McKinney represents hundreds of thousands of people, and has served many terms in office. The author demonstrates the specific intent to undermine the inquiry of millions of citizens into mainstream evidence that directly contradicts the 'official story' of 9/11. This article is unscientific, and derogatory.

- I.C.

[LARED]

9. Sometimes the truth hurts

I find the author's statements rather insulting and lacking in journalistic value.

The problem with your concern is that his statement is true. McKinney does live on the lunatic fringe of the left. It's her right, and if her constituents want her in office, that's fine, but she is a way out there on the fringe in many of the things she espouses. It's one of the best features of the American Republic.

He forgets his station.

This I find this to be a fascinating and illuminating comment. I wonder if you think left wing journalists forget their stations when critizing an elected offical. I may not like the guy's politics but to indicate he is forgetting his station belies an elitist mentality.

McKinney represents hundreds of thousands of people, and has served many terms in office. The author demonstrates the specific intent to undermine the inquiry of millions of citizens into mainstream evidence that directly contradicts the 'official story' of 9/11.

Millions of citizens are inquiring about lunatic fringe 9/11 conspiracies? Who knew?

This article is unscientific, and derogatory.

I hope it's not scientific as no one was trying to make that claim. As for it derogatory nature, I would say it less derogatory than saying the author does not know his station.

[stickdog]

13. The article is a load of propaganda filled with insults, innuendo and

name calling.

The author says nothing to dismiss any of the 9/11 panel's concerns, but simply tells his audience to disregard them because McKinney's father made an anti-semitic remark and Wayne Madsen doesn't like the fact that the Bushes are a crime family. Everyone else who made a presentation is simply branded a "conspiracy theorist," as if that designation in itself somehow made the hundreds of legitimate concerns expressed by McKinney's 9/11 panel moot.

Why am I not surprised to find our resident debunkers aligning themselves with the "journalistic" likes of The Weekly Standard?

[LARED]

18. Tell you what

I'd rather be aligned with the "Weekly Standard" (although nothing I said indicates I am) than with the likes of the journalism typically defended by the 9/11 CT'er. At least the "weekly Standard" manages to avoid advocating world wide Jewish conspiracies and historical revisionists that would make Stalin blush.

[stickdog]

20. Again, why am I not surprised?

And why am I not surprised that you just used the same disparaging labels, mocking tone and "guilt by association" logical fallacy as The Weekly Standard author you are defending?

[carlvs]

2. There is a "joke" here

And that is that you and your fellow CTers honestly think that most people outside this forum would have anything but scorn and derision for the "theories" that I have seen you all demand people believe.

You all should count yourselves fortunate that the moderators here allow you to this area (and even they wisely block any attempts to have anything posted here to be voted for DU's "Greatest Discussions" page.)

As for the opinion piece itself (funny that you didn't mention that this was in their equivalent of a newspaper's editorial section,) the only problem I have with it is that comes from an writer for a conservative magazine ...but then again I am not surprised that they would use the crappola I see regularly posted here as the "truth" to smear all democrats.

And as for the rest of post - its funny that for such a "biased" source, they also include links on that page to opinion pieces from writers for the rather more progressive magazine The Nation that praised last weekend's anti-war demonstrations and attacked those who are trying to force Intelligent Design / Creationism to be taught in our country's science classes...

[HughBeaumont]

12. Do you contribute a DAMN thing to any topic here

other than insults? Just wondering.

[Sterling]

35. That's funny since the majority of DUers think MIHOP or LIHOP

at best. Trust me we are not "lucky" to be allowed to post here. If the majority wanted this talk banned it would have happened a long time ago.

As far as people outside of DU I find only the most die hard Bush assholes are offended by the idea that Bush and his ilk are evil motherfuckers who could care less if most Americans live or die.

Why are you so offended. I wonder. Most people I talk to have approached the subject respectfully and thoughtfully if they have discussed it at all.

[JackRiddler]

3. Reconsider your complaint...

Delver,

Your legitimate beef against CBS is actually that they didn't cover any of McKinney's hearings.

This column is not from CBS, it only appears on the CBS site. They are getting it on a feed from "The Weekly Standard," an organ of the extreme right.

Typically, the Standard covered McKinney's hearings, of course in order to attack and defame all those who question the Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11.

But even this exposure is much better than being ignored.

The author at least bothers to detail several of the theses presented at the hearings, even giving a very rare mention to the (obvious) idea that Wellstone was assassinated.

Carlvs,

Maybe you are the one who should reconsider what forums you are visiting. After 9/11, DU was among the pioneer sites in exposing the real evidence, in fact the term LIHOP was invented here. It is only recently that the management has unfortunately gotten cold feet, presumably because it "looks bad" compared to some presumed image of what Democrats should be projecting.

The majority at DU rightly believe in the overwhelming evidence for US government complicity and probable engineering of the 9/11 crimes, as confirmed in multiple polls held on this site.

In this, they join the people of New York City, and probably a majority in the world outside the United States.

The history of civilization has featured a parallel history of how states in almost every country at some point devolve into tyranny and naked plunder. Invariably, enemies are created and if necessary, false-flag enemy attacks are staged to facilitate external and internal aggression (or, to use the modern terms: imperial war and domestic fascism).

The September 11th events fit into this pattern perfectly. An inside job has been the logical default hypothesis for all those who were not directly part of the population targeted by this psychological operation.

The whole world is thinking this, and only in the United States is a (possible) majority still in denial.

It is the upholders of the Official Conspiracy Theory who actually must defend their long-ago discredited wish-construct of 19 conspirators who magically circumvented an entirely unwitting and surprised US intel-military-justice apparatus, caused the chain of command to disappear from duty, kept the interceptors grounded, suppressed all warnings and investigations that would have uncovered the alleged hijackers, etc. etc.

How is it that all the coincidences coincide in the same direction? Explain for us the systematic cover-up as anything other than an attempt to hide criminal wrong-doing.

[Kevin Fenton]

5. Logical default

"The history of civilization has featured a parallel history of how states in almost every country at some point devolve into tyranny and naked plunder. Invariably, enemies are created and if necessary, false-flag enemy attacks are staged to facilitate external and internal aggression (or, to use the modern terms: imperial war and domestic fascism).

The September 11th events fit into this pattern perfectly. An inside job has been the logical default hypothesis for all those who were not directly part of the population targeted by this psychological operation."

I agree that an inside job is the logical default hypothesis, but this doesn't mean that it's the correct one, as there are indications pointing elsewhere, for example:
(1) How come Bush (I was reading a story about a goat), Rumsfeld (I was plying doctors and nurses) and Myers (I knew nothing about it) have such bad cover stories? If they planned it in advance, shouldn't they have better cover stories?
(2) Why would they frame Al Qaeda and Afghanistan? They don't care about them. Bushco suffers from Iraqmania (as well as Iranmania and North Koreamania), so if it was an inside job, why not frame Iraqi intelligence, or at least plant some evidence pointing to them?
(3) How come the twin towers were blown up so badly - the bomber even demolished the wrong tower first (the one that was hit second)? Why use far too much explosives leading to the alleged tell-tale squibs?
(4) How do you account for the indications the hijackers were better pilots than is commonly supposed - Mansour Khaled, those who attended US military institutions, what Amanda Keller said about Atta's flying skills?

That'll do for now.

[Tim Howells]

8. Some thoughts

Re Bush's Pet Goat - I tend to agree that this is strong
evidence that Bush was out of the loop. Note that the
US Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, who normally would have
been directing the response in the Situation Room was
also stranded at this ridiculous photo op for unclear
reasons. Meanwhile VP and Mrs Cheney seemed firmly
in charge in Washington.

Re framing al-Qaeda rather than Iraq. Most of the
alleged hijackers were Saudi. My guess is that the
hope was to prompt a military attack on Saudi Arabia,
as well as Afghanistan. Iraq was a good second choice.
Again I agree that this indicates that Bush was not in
on this, both because of his close links to the Saudis
and because he did not choose to go with this option.
Keep in mind that Hopsicker has shown that There was
an assassination attempt on Bush on September 11.

It looks as though even Karl Rove was out of the loop.
He was the one who let out that the President had been
threatened by an unknown source who had demonstrated
a knowledge of White House passwords and protocols of
the very highest level. Later on this was hushed up.

My guess is that this was an inside job involving
traitors inside the adminstration (Cheney) and a
foreign power (Israel). Since Bush survived September
11 and has played along to an acceptable extent, what
we are seeing playing out is a compromise largely
but not completely controled by the perpetrators.

Tim Howells

[Kevin Fenton]

11. I am very suspicious of the VP

"Re Bush's Pet Goat - I tend to agree that this is strong evidence that Bush was out of the loop... Meanwhile VP and Mrs Cheney seemed firmly in charge in Washington."
I agree, but I don't think this necessarily indicates Cheney had foreknowledge.

"Re framing al-Qaeda rather than Iraq. Most of the alleged hijackers were Saudi."
True, but I doubt most of them really were Saudi. At least six of the nineteen were not who they (or the government) claimed. AQ had previous of forging Saudi passports and it was much easier for Saudis to get into the US (for example Binalshibh couldn't and he was Yemeni), because of the good relations between the two countries. Mansour Khaled seems to be Pakistani, we have no idea what nationality the people who tried to assinate Bush or the people who wanted to hijack United 23 were.

"My guess is that the hope was to prompt a military attack on Saudi Arabia, as well as Afghanistan."
The VP is an oilman too and he's not crazy enough to attack Saudi.

"Iraq was a good second choice."
In the Price of Loyalty, Paul O'Niell (who was on the NSC and the war cabinet) says that Bush and Rummy had decided to attack Iraq before they even came into office. It really looks like it was their first choice.

"My guess is that this was an inside job involving traitors inside the adminstration (Cheney) and a foreign power (Israel). Since Bush survived September 11 and has played along to an acceptable extent, what we are seeing playing out is a compromise largely but not completely controled by the perpetrators."
I've heard this idea before and I can see why you make the argument, but I can't really agree with it - it fits the facts from a certain perspective, but it hasn't got much to back it up (you've read the awful Synthetic Terror, haven't you?). Why would Cheney have to do a thing like this, when he and his cronies controlled the administration anyway? And why do you think Israel was involved?

[Tim Howells]

16. Re Cheney, the Israelis, and the Frame-up

>> Re framing al-Qaeda rather than Iraq. Most of the alleged
>> hijackers were Saudi.

> True, but I doubt most of them really were Saudi. At least
> six of the nineteen were not who they (or the government)
> claimed. AQ had previous of forging Saudi passports and it
> was much easier for Saudis to get into the US (for example
> Binalshibh couldn't and he was Yemeni), because of the good
> relations between the two countries. Mansour Khaled seems to
> be Pakistani, we have no idea what nationality the people
> who tried to assinate Bush or the people who wanted to hijack
> United 23 were.

I don't think we really have any idea who most of the hijackers
really were. For example, the descriptions of Mohamed Atta we
have from Germany and from the US are clearly descriptions of
two completely different people. From a Seymour Hersch article:

***** QUOTE ON *******

Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial
clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities
and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be
found. A former high-level intelligence official told me,
"Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the
F.B.I. to chase."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011008fa_FACT

***** QUOTE OFF *******

i.e. the leads pointing to the Saudis were planted.

>> My guess is that the hope was to prompt a military attack on
>> Saudi Arabia, as well as Afghanistan."

> The VP is an oilman too and he's not crazy enough to attack
> Saudi.

Cheney is not really an oilman. He is a member of the
military-industrial complex who got into the Halliburton
position via the revolving door. He is a corrupt politician
looking increase his power and to profit financially.

>> Iraq was a good second choice.

> In the Price of Loyalty, Paul O'Niell (who was on the NSC and
> the war cabinet) says that Bush and Rummy had decided to attack
> Iraq before they even came into office. It really looks like it
> was their first choice.

The Iraq war was in the cards already, as you say. I believe
that September 11 was designed to target ALL Arab countries, but
most immediately the Saudis. Hence all the probably false leads
pointing to Saudi identities of the hijackers. Bush was
definitely focussed on Iraq as you say, probably for very
personal reasons. (Wanting to go one up on dad)

>> My guess is that this was an inside job involving traitors
>> inside the adminstration (Cheney) and a foreign power
>> (Israel). Since Bush survived September 11 and has played
>> along to an acceptable extent, what we are seeing playing
>> out is a compromise largely but not completely controled by
>> the perpetrators.

> I've heard this idea before and I can see why you make the
> argument, but I can't really agree with it - it fits the facts
> from a certain perspective, but it hasn't got much to back it
> up (you've read the awful Synthetic Terror, haven't you?). Why
> would Cheney have to do a thing like this, when he and his
> cronies controlled the administration anyway? And why do you
> think Israel was involved?

I have not read Synthetic Terror, so I can't comment. It's on
my list to read. Re Israel - they had to be the primary suspect
for a false-flag scenario from the beginning because they had
by far the most to gain and least to lose. Also, we know that
they have done such things in the past many times. They were
caught read handed planting bombs in American and British
buildings in Egypt (The Lavon Affair). The plan was to make
it look as though the Muslim Brotherhood had done it and to
damage Egypts relations with the US and Britain. The Israeli
government recently held a ceremony officially honoring the
Lavon Affair false-flag terrorists.

http://www.hsje.org/israel_honors_9_egyptian_spies.htm

Any knowledgable person (other than obvious Israeli shills)
will tell you that Abu Nidal was controlled by Mossad. See
"Abu Nidal, Gun for Hire" by Patrick Seale. etc etc etc ...

Re hard evidence - there were those Israeli intelligence
agents caught celebrating and cheering while the WTC burned
and then collapsed. Not proof necessarily, but just imagine
if those had been IRAQI or SAUDI intelligence agents!!

Also Sibel Edmonds, our prime whistleblower, is pointing
in this direction. She has recently started naming names:
She has all but accused Douglas Feith of treason:

http://www.publicdomainprogress.info/2005/08/cracking-case-interview-with-sibel.html

She also points to a nuclear smuggling ring involving
a Jewish Turk named Zeki Bilmen and an Israeli named
Asher Karni, who is described as a highly religious
orthodx Jew. They were supplying nuclear weapons grade
material to Arab terrorist groups. Edmonds seems to
be saying that this same network was behind September 11.

http://www.publicdomainprogress.info/2005/08/cracking-case-interview-with-sibel.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6247.htm

Israel was in a quite a bind in the year prior to the attacks
because of the Second Intifada. This led to an arms embargo
by the US on Israel, which was lifted soon after September 11.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=90517

During this same period, The Saudis were very effectively
pressuring the administration for a more even handed approach
to Israeli-Palestinian issues, and also Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1646921.stm
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/tanotes/TAUnotes36.doc
http://www.jr.co.il/articles/politics/bush.txt
http://boston.com/dailyglobe/2002/01/13/ope/time_to_give_saudis_an.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/26/world/main274498.shtml

The Saudi agenda was also derailed by 911.

Re Cheney - He was very tight with the Israelis. For example
he was on the board of advisors for the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (JINSA).

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest

Tim Howells

[Kevin Fenton]

23. Various

"For example, the descriptions of Mohamed Atta we have from Germany and from the US are clearly descriptions of two completely different people."
Where did you get this from?

"A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.""
It seems to have been planted for somebody to trace, not necessarily the FBI. AFAIK the leads he's referring to are ones related to planes (and plots to hijack them), not specifically Saudis. If they were planted deliberately, why was it done so badly that it was obvious it was deliberate? Shouldn't the planters be better at planting? I don't understand this at all.

The US can't attack all Arab countries - they're too many of them - and it would make sense for them to start with the important ones they don't like anyway, like Iraq and Iran. Rummy was on board the Iraq project from day one, as was the CIA. There's really not much evidence supporting the idea there was a plan to attack Saudi.

Synthetic Terror is awful, even worse than Pentagate, whatever you read, don't read it.

"Re Israel - they had to be the primary suspect for a false-flag scenario from the beginning because they had by far the most to gain and least to lose."
What have they gained? Israel's been going backward, not forward since 9/11. I doubt they were involved in it in any way.

"Also, we know that they have done such things in the past many times."
I'd disagree with some of the things you say, but the general idea is sound. Then again, all intelligence services do false-flag operations.

"there were those Israeli intelligence agents caught celebrating and cheering while the WTC burned and then collapsed."
I don't think this is true. Where did you get it from?

[Tim Howells]

24. More on Israeli motives etc.

Kevin Fenton wrote:
> Tim Howells wrote:
>> Re hard evidence of involvement in September 11 - there
>> were those Israeli intelligence agents caught celebrating
>> and cheering while the WTC burned and then collapsed. Not
>> proof necessarily, but just imagine our reaction if those
>> had been IRAQI or SAUDI intelligence agents!!

> I don't think this is true. Where did you get it from?

Here's a link to an ABC News story on the subject of the
Israeli agents who were spotted filming the collapse of
the Towers while cheering and celebrating:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0622-05.htm

Also, employees at Odigo, an Israeli company with offices in
the World Trade Center received warning ot the attack and were
told to stay away just two hours before the buildings were hit.
They took the warning seriously and passed it on to Israeli
security services.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C

>> Re Israel - they had to be the primary suspect for a
>> false-flag scenario from the beginning because they had
>> by far the most to gain and least to lose. Also, we
>> know that they have done such things in the past many
>> times. They were caught read handed planting bombs in
>> American and British buildings in Egypt (The Lavon Affair).
>> The plan was to make it look as though the Muslim
>> Brotherhood had done it and to damage Egypt's relations
>> with the US and Britain. The Israeli government recently
>> held a ceremony officially honoring the Lavon Affair false-
>> flag terrorists.
>>
>> http://www.hsje.org/israel_honors_9_egyptian_spies.htm

> I'd disagree with some of the things you say, but the general
> idea is sound. Then again, all intelligence services do false-
> flag operations.

The Lavon Affair is very well documented. As the above
reference shows, the Israeli government has not only admitted
that they did this, but has publicly honored the perpetrators
of the false-flag bombings.

http://www.hsje.org/israel_honors_9_egyptian_spies.htm

> What have they gained? Israel's been going backward, not
> forward since 9/11. I doubt they were involved in it in any
> way.

From the standpoint of Israel's strategic plan in the Middle-
East, the US invasion of Iraq and the consequent chaos there
and the dissolution of Iraq as a viable secular state are a
huge step forward. This has been a strategic goal of the
Israelis since the 1980's at least. Oded Yinon, an Israeli
official writing in the Hebrew Journal Kivunim (Directions),
A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14 - February
1982 articulated the plan:

********** QUOTE ON *********

Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a
precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria,
Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following
that track ... Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and
internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate
for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important
for us than that of Syria.

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html

********** QUOTE OFF *********

Israel and their neocon allies lobbied hard for the Iraq War,
but I sincerely they could have foisted this fiasco on us
without September 11. Now they are lobbying hard to get us
to attack Iran, and it looks like they will get that too.

Another benefit that Israel reaped as a result of 911 was
the lifing of an arms embargo we had imposed on them because
of their brutal tactics in suppressing the Second Intifada.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=90517

During this same period, in the year prior to September 11 2001,
The Saudis were very effectively pressuring the administration
for a more even handed approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues,
and also Iraq. The Saudi agenda was also derailed by 911.

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/tanotes/TAUnotes36.doc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1646921.stm
http://www.jr.co.il/articles/politics/bush.txt
http://boston.com/dailyglobe/2002/01/13/ope/time_to_give_saudis_an.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/26/world/main274498.shtml

I cannot see how anyone can possibly deny that the Israelis
have benefitted tremendously from the attacks, just as would
have been predicted. This after all was exactly the same
tactic used in the Lavon Affair with the same aim. The aim
is to demonize your enemy in the eyes of the world, and if
you can do that you will reap many benefits.

>> For example, the descriptions of Mohamed Atta we have from
>> Germany and from the US are clearly descriptions of two
>> completely different people.

> Where did you get this from?

The descriptions from Germany are of a quiet, highly
intelligent architecture student. He was not a pilot and
had no intention to become one. He was modest and soft
spoken, and lived a very simple lifestyle.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/bodenstein.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/hauth.htm

The descriptions from the US are completely different.
According to his girlfriend, Amanda Keller, Atta was a
highly qualified pilot with qualifications from several
different countries. He functioned as an instructor at
Huffman Aviation. He was a flashy dresser who wore lots
of expensive jewllery and cologne. He frequented discos
and topless joints. People who met him sometimes assumed
he was Mafia. He was a heavy drinker and had a very
serious cocaine habit. See Welcome to Terrorland by Daniel
Hopsicker. By the way, according to Keller one of the
languages Atta spoke was Hebrew.

>> "A former high-level intelligence official told me,
>> "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for
>> the F.B.I. to chase.""

> It seems to have been planted for somebody to trace, not
> necessarily the FBI. AFAIK the leads he's referring to are
> ones related to planes (and plots to hijack them), not
> specifically Saudis. If they were planted deliberately, why
> was it done so badly that it was obvious it was deliberate?
> Shouldn't the planters be better at planting? I don't
> understand this at all.

It's not possible to plant false leads for an attack of this
scale that will stand up to a real investigation. The key
is to make sure that there is no investigation, and to control
the coverage in the media. Both of those things have been done.

> The US can't attack all Arab countries - they're too many of
> them - and it would make sense for them to start with the
> important ones they don't like anyway, like Iraq and Iran.
> Rummy was on board the Iraq project from day one, as was the
> CIA. There's really not much evidence supporting the idea
> there was a plan to attack Saudi.

You misunderstand me here. I know there was no intention in
the Bush administration to attack the Saudis, who among other
things are very tight with the Bush family, and who have
helped George W. out a great deal over the years. However,
the intention of 911 was clearly to trigger an attack on Saudi
Arabia (if you accept that it was false-flag), as I pointed
out in the previous post. You are confusing the intentions
of the administration with those of the Israelis.

The Israelis were panicking about Saudi pressure on the
Bush administration in the year prior to the attacks. See

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/tanotes/TAUnotes36.doc
http://boston.com/dailyglobe/2002/01/13/ope/time_to_give_saudis_an.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/26/world/main274498.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1646921.stm
http://www.jr.co.il/articles/politics/bush.txt

Tim Howells

[Kevin Fenton]

25. Thanks, etc.

Thanks for the link to the ABC article - it's the best one I've read about the incident. Previously, I thought they were celebtrating several hours after the towers fell (I don't know why I thought this).

However, that plus Odigo plus the art students/removal men does not equate to hard evidence of involvement in planning and execution in my book.

"The US invasion of Iraq and the consequent chaos there and the dissolution of Iraq as a viable secular state are a huge step forward."
I can see that Israel has a lot of influence in the Kurdish zone, but the centre is now more or less controlled by Al Qaeda for Jihad in Mesopotamia and the south is a client of Iran. I don't know if this is a good thing for Israel, probably not.
Nevertheless, Israel did not use 9/11 to annex more territory - it's actually giving up territory now.

I think Iran is off for the moment, given that the US et al. are losing in Iraq and Iran would be a much harder nut to crack.

The Saudi agenda, as you call it, for a more even-handed approach to the Palestinian problem was derailed by Bush's election - at the first meeting of the NSC in January 2001 he said he didn't give a monkey's about it and would concentrate on invading Iraq. What's the slogan, "The road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad"? or something like that?

"According to his girlfriend, Amanda Keller, Atta was a highly qualified pilot with qualifications from several different countries. He functioned as an instructor at Huffman Aviation."
I think you're overstating here. Keller said she suspected he was a better pilot than he was letting on, nothing more.
Whilst studying in Germany he went to Afghanistan. What for? To take a short walk in the Hindu Kush? Also, he was investigated for drug offences in Germany, hardly different to his behaviour in the US.

"It's not possible to plant false leads for an attack of this scale that will stand up to a real investigation."
There wasn't a real investigation. The FBI seems to have realised it was planted straight away. I don't get this at all.

[Tim Howells]

26. Israel's current aims in the Middle-East

Kevin Fenton wrote:
> Tim Howells wrote:
>> From the standpoint of Israel's strategic plan in the
>> Middle-East, the US invasion of Iraq and the consequent
>> chaos there and the dissolution of Iraq as a viable secular
>> state are a huge step forward.

> I can see that Israel has a lot of influence in the Kurdish zone,
> but the centre is now more or less controlled by Al Qaeda for
> Jihad in Mesopotamia and the south is a client of Iran. I don't
> know if this is a good thing for Israel, probably not.

Believe me, Israel does not view Al Qaeda as a threat! Also their
primary aim at this point is not to gain influence in Iraq, but to
destroy it as a unified secular state that could emerge as a major
competitor to Israel in the region. Again I'll refer you to the
words of Israeli strategist Oded Yinon, writing in the Hebrew
Journal Kivunim (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism;
Issue No, 14 - February 1982:

********** QUOTE ON *********

Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a
precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria,
Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following
that track ... Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and
internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate
for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important
for us than that of Syria.

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html

********** QUOTE OFF *********

Many on the political left are crying out that the disolution of
Iraq into civil war and chaos are proof that the Neocons have
failed. Nothing could be further from the truth; this has been
an Israeli goal for decades.

> Nevertheless, Israel did not use 9/11 to annex more territory -
> it's actually giving up territory now.

That's not really true. They have built more new settlements in
Gaza than they have dismantled. But anyway, Israel is not now
looking to expand their territory - they have their hands full
trying to occupy what they have already taken. Instead they
are trying to destroy the Arab states, which will pave the way
for other moves when the time is right.

> I think Iran is off for the moment, given that the US et al.
> are losing in Iraq and Iran would be a much harder nut to crack.

Oh I agree it will be a disaster. Unfortunately that does not
mean we won't do it. I hope you're right.

> The Saudi agenda, as you call it, for a more even-handed
> approach to the Palestinian problem was derailed by Bush's
> election - at the first meeting of the NSC in January 2001
> he said he didn't give a monkey's about it and would
> concentrate on invading Iraq. What's the slogan, "The road
> to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad"? or something like that?

Don't know - I would not take anything GW said too seriously
anyway. In any case, it's true that his administration leaned
heavily to Israel - even more than Clinton's had. The Saudis
got very pissed off about this and started pressuring the Bush
administration very effectively for a more even handed approach
to Israeli-Palestinian issues, and also towards Iraq. In
response to the Saudi pressure the administration was in August
2001 preparing to announce its support for the creation of a
Palestinian State. September 11 put an end to that.

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/tanotes/TAUnotes36.doc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1646921.stm
http://www.jr.co.il/articles/politics/bush.txt
http://boston.com/dailyglobe/2002/01/13/ope/time_to_give_saudis_an.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/26/world/main274498.shtml

>> According to his girlfriend, Amanda Keller, Atta was a highly
>> qualified pilot with qualifications from several different
>> countries. He functioned as an instructor at Huffman Aviation.

> I think you're overstating here. Keller said she suspected he
> was a better pilot than he was letting on, nothing more.

She said that he went up with student pilots, and supervised them,
and that only instructors were allowed to do that. As I pointed
out, she also said that he had flying licences issued in several
different countries.

> Whilst studying in Germany he went to Afghanistan. What for? To
> take a short walk in the Hindu Kush? Also, he was investigated
> for drug offences in Germany, hardly different to his behaviour
> in the US.

The Mohammed Atta in the US also had contacts in Germany and
had lived there. I have not tried to unravel this whole story,
because it is not a crucial issue to me. However, when I look
at the descriptions of Atta the architectural student in Germany,
and the descriptions of Atta the pilot in Florida, I see two
completely different people, as I said before:

>> The descriptions from Germany are of a quiet, highly
>> intelligent architecture student. He was not a pilot and
>> had no intention to become one. He was modest and soft
>> spoken, and lived a very simple lifestyle.
>>
>> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/bodenstein.htm
>> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/hauth.htm
>>
>> The descriptions from the US are completely different.
>> According to his girlfriend, Amanda Keller, Atta was a
>> highly qualified pilot with qualifications from several
>> different countries. He functioned as an instructor at
>> Huffman Aviation. He was a flashy dresser who wore lots
>> of expensive jewllery and cologne. He frequented discos
>> and topless joints. People who met him sometimes assumed
>> he was Mafia. He was a heavy drinker and had a very
>> serious cocaine habit. See Welcome to Terrorland by Daniel
>> Hopsicker. By the way, according to Keller one of the
>> languages Atta spoke was Hebrew.

Tim Howells

[Kevin Fenton]

27. More Israel

"Believe me, Israel does not view Al Qaeda as a threat!"
Why do you think so?

"Also their primary aim at this point is not to gain influence in Iraq, but to destroy it as a unified secular state that could emerge as a major competitor to Israel in the region."
Destroying it as a secular state will strengthen (a) the Kurds (good for Israel, coz they ain't Arabs), (b) Sunni extermism and AQ (bad for Israel) and (c) Iran, with its client statelet in the south of where Iraq is now (also bad for Israel). Previously, Iraq was emasculated by the sanctions and couldn't compete with Israel. If the occupation was a success, it would become a competitor. The failure of the occupation is strengthening Iran and Islamic extermism, which cannot be good for Israel.

"Again I'll refer you to the words of Israeli strategist Oded Yinon, writing in the Hebrew Journal Kivunim (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14 - February 1982:"
It's a good quote, but it's 23 years old. At that time Israel was going forward, now they're going backwards. Times have changed.

"Many on the political left are crying out that the disolution of
Iraq into civil war and chaos are proof that the Neocons have
failed. Nothing could be further from the truth; this has been
an Israeli goal for decades."
Primarily because of the Kurds; Israel has been trying to get them going for donkeys' years, as a part of its strategy of building up non-Arabs in the Middle East.

[Tim Howells]

28. Israeli Strategy and Iraq

>> "Believe me, Israel does not view Al Qaeda as a threat!"

> Why do you think so?

I can't find the link for this, but after September 11 it was
noted that Israel did not include al Qaeda on its list of
terrorist organizations. You might think that this oversight
would have been corrected in 2002, but it was not. Then
finally in 2003 they remembered to include them.

Anyway, Israel actually much prefers radical Islamic militant
organizations to secular ones, like the PLO. They correctly
believe that the former are very destructive to Arab society,
and damaging and to Arab international standing. Therefore
Israel actually provides funding and logistical support to
the major Arab terrorist organizations, eg Hamas.

********* QUOTE ON *********

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it
as a counterbalance to the PLO", said Tony Cordesman, Middle
East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies. Israel's
support for Hamas 'was a direct attempt to divide and dilute
support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing
religious alternative', said a former senior CIA official...
The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli
establishment was that Hamas and the other groups, if they
gained control, would refuse to have anything to do with the
peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place,"
said a U.S. government official… Former State Department
counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson told UPI: "The
Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting
terrorism. They are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and
then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer. They do
more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it."
{UPI, Feb 24, 2001}

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/06/132088.php

********* QUOTE OFF *********

The Israelis do not regard the militant Islamist groups like
al Qaeda as threats, but as assets.

>> Also their primary aim at this point is not to gain
>> influence in Iraq, but to destroy it as a unified secular
>> state that could emerge as a major competitor to Israel
>> in the region.

> Destroying it as a secular state will strengthen (a) the
> Kurds (good for Israel, coz they ain't Arabs), (b) Sunni
> extermism and AQ (bad for Israel) and (c) Iran, with its
> client statelet in the south of where Iraq is now (also bad
> for Israel).

You could argue that Arab extremism and fanaticism are bad
for Israel, but Israeli strategists are still following the
line laid out by Oded Yinon in 1982 - divide and conquer;
stir up all the fanaticism and sectarian hatred possible in
the Arab world. In this way they intend to undermine the
Arab States and ultimately destroy them. Look at what Yinon
said in detail - look at the Clean Break paper - look at what
the Israelis were doing in 2001 (as described in the UPI article
above). You say that Yinon's article is old, having been
written in 1982. You have to understand that Israeli
strategists are not given to fads; they think in terms of the
survival of their race. To an extent this is admirable, except
that sometimes they fail to consider that their own well-being
is somehow linked to the rest of the world as well.

> Previously, Iraq was emasculated by the sanctions
> and couldn't compete with Israel.

This is true, but the sanctions were not going to last forever.
Sooner or later Saddam would be gone, and the next generation
would take as its first priority getting the sanctions lifted.
Iraq would have survived as a unified secular state with vibrant
intellectual and scientific communities.

> If the occupation was a success, it would become a competitor.

I believe that Israel and their allies are doing everything
possible to make sure that the occupation is NOT a success
despite the rosy lip-service to peace and democracy. Here's
another tidbit from UPI:

******** QUOTE ON *********

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents
in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols
seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not
appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have
come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts
suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were
intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with
substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns
are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that
agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S.
authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of
the illegitimacy of the resistance.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050603-021838-6491r.htm

******** QUOTE OFF *********

> At that time {1982} Israel was going forward, now they're going
> backwards. Times have changed.

I'm not sure why you say that Israel is going backwards. Since
September 11 they have been able to do pretty much as they want
with targeted killings, assassinations in foreign countries,
really brutal crackdowns on the Palestinians etc. The destruction
of a few settlements in Gaza is strictly window dressing. They
have built more new settlements in Gaza then they have dismantled.

Tim Howells

[Kevin Fenton]

29. Hamas, etc.

"after September 11 it was noted that Israel did not include al Qaeda on its list of terrorist organizations."
AQ operates as a franchise, it bullies other, existing terrorist organisations to accept its patronage and leadership. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were big enough and hard enough to say no. That's why AQ wasn't on the list, because it's never done anything against Israel. AQ's whole strategy is based on attacking the US, not Israel.

"Anyway, Israel actually much prefers radical Islamic militant
organizations to secular ones, like the PLO. They correctly believe that the former are very destructive to Arab society, and damaging and to Arab international standing. Therefore Israel actually provides funding and logistical support to the major Arab terrorist organizations, eg Hamas."
I think it's more accurate to say they "provided funding". So what? They're applying the principle of divide and rule, what other principle could they apply? And how does this give them an active role in 9/11?

"In this way (using fundamentalism) they intend to undermine the Arab States and ultimately destroy them."
How can they destroy the Arab states? The Arabs will still be there no matter what happens to their countries and there just ain't enough Israelis to occupy the whole Middle East. I think one of the Israelis' aims is to strengthen other non-Arab entities in the region (like the Kurds) and keep the other countries there on the hop until something turns up. As a strategy it's not great, but it's the dead-end their failed expansionism has led them down.

"You have to understand that Israeli strategists are not given to fads; they think in terms of the survival of their race."
There's been a sea change. There was a time when Israel was occupying a new bit of the Middle East every few years (like the southern Lebanon in the early 80s), now they give a bit up every year. They've realised they need peace more than new land. What good's new land to them anyway - it's all desert down there?

"I believe that Israel and their allies are doing everything possible to make sure that the occupation is NOT a success."
Depends which way you look at it. Training and arming all those Kurdish commandoes to the teeth is probably good for the Kurds, but maybe not so good for the cohesion of Iraq. But I don't think they're helping the insurgency - that comes from the stay-behind network.

By Israel is going backwards I mean in the early days they took big chunks of territory, but now they give up territory. Where do you get the thing about Gaza strip settlements from?

[Tim Howells]

30. Final thoughts

>> Anyway, Israel actually much prefers radical Islamic militant
>> organizations to secular ones, like the PLO. They correctly
>> believe that the former are very destructive to Arab society,
>> and damaging and to Arab international standing. Therefore
>> Israel actually provides funding and logistical support to
>> the major Arab terrorist organizations, eg Hamas.

> I think it's more accurate to say they "provided funding".
> So what? They're applying the principle of divide and rule,
> what other principle could they apply? And how does this
> give them an active role in 9/11?

I think you have a very defensive attitude towards Israel.
I'm just pointing out the fact that they have in the past
provided and continue to provide support (both financial and
logistical) to Arab terrorist organizations. The same can
be said for the US government as well. The implications
regarding September 11 should be apparent. Re logistical
support - Israeli intelligence was in the forefront of
providing support for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, pushing
this agenda much further and faster than the CIA was at all
comfortable with. They used Congressman Charlie Wilson (who
described himself as an "Israeli Commando in the US Congress")
to do this, bypassing normal Agency channels. See the book
"Charlie Wilson's War" by George Crile.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871138549/104-7693755-9664748?v=glance

Also "The Bear Trap" by Mohammed Yousaf

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0971170924/104-7693755-9664748?v=glance

Again this certainly is in line (roughly) with US policy.
The implication that the national security sectors of BOTH
countries should be looked at very carefully in relation to
September 11 is obvious.

A more timely warning in this respect are the urgent warnings
from Sibel Edmonds that Israel-connected groups are instrumental
in providing nuclear weapons grade material to Arab narco-terrorist
groups. Check out what she has to say about Douglas Feith,
Zeki Bilmen, and Asher Karni:

http://www.publicdomainprogress.info/2005/08/cracking-case-interview-with-sibel.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6247.htm

But I have the distinct feeling that this is an exercise in
futility, and that you will not even consider any evidence
that points towards Israel.

>> In this way (using fundamentalism) they intend to
>> undermine the Arab States and ultimately destroy them.

> How can they destroy the Arab states? The Arabs will still be
> there no matter what happens to their countries and there just
> ain't enough Israelis to occupy the whole Middle East. I think
> one of the Israelis' aims is to strengthen other non-Arab
> entities in the region (like the Kurds) and keep the other
> countries there on the hop until something turns up. As a
> strategy it's not great, but it's the dead-end their failed
> expansionism has led them down.

You are bringing up important issues. It does seem strange
from our perspective that Israel would WANT to be surrounded
by failed Arab States, and yet this seems to be the case.
The goal is clearly and unambiguously spelled out in the
paper by Oded Yinon that I referred you to before. Israel
is clearly following this plan even in details. Israel's
first priority is to be the unchallengable power in the
region. This is what they have to gain by destroying the
Arab States.

As to how they will clean up the mess in the long run ...
See the PNAC paper, Rebuilding America's Defenses. On page
60 you will find this rather chilling observation:

********* QUOTE ON *********

Advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target"
specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from
the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

********* QUOTE OFF ********

Given that the authors of this paper are all rabid Zionists,
just which "specific genotype" do you think that they view as
"politically useful" to eliminate? Of course in the longer
run there would be many other candidates besides the Arabs
for such a capability.

>> You have to understand that Israeli strategists are not
>> given to fads; they think in terms of the survival of
>> their race.

> There's been a sea change. There was a time when Israel was
> occupying a new bit of the Middle East every few years (like
> the southern Lebanon in the early 80s), now they give a bit
> up every year. They've realised they need peace more than
> new land. What good's new land to them anyway - it's all
> desert down there?

I sure hope that you are right. Unfortunately recent history
has shown that the extreme warmongers among us have mastered
the art of using the "strategy of tension" to great effect
whenever peace threatens to break out.

> I believe that Israel and their allies are doing everything
> possible to make sure that the occupation is NOT a success."

> Depends which way you look at it. Training and arming all those
> Kurdish commandoes to the teeth is probably good for the Kurds,
> but maybe not so good for the cohesion of Iraq. But I don't
> think they're helping the insurgency - that comes from the stay-
> behind network.

I think the stay-behind network and the Israelis have joined
forces in a big way. I think this is the real story behind
September 11.

> By Israel is going backwards I mean in the early days they took
> big chunks of territory, but now they give up territory.
> Where do you get the thing about Gaza strip settlements from?

Whoops - should have said "West Bank" - not "Gaza".

I've got to go now. I'll be traveling next week and I'm leaving
tomorrow - enjoyed the thread. I'll leave you with one more
instance of Israeli false-flag terrorism against the US. I
just noticed this excellent recent article by Paul Findlay about
the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Findlay argues that the
aim was to convince the US that the attack was made by the Egyptians,
and to draw the US into the war on the Israeli side. I agree.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/August_2005/0508016.html

Tim Howells

[stickdog]

14. Good questions. However, all are far easier to explain than the

the criminal level of incompetence the official story would have us believe occurred such that 19 guys with no outside help were allowed to terrorize our domestic skies using nothing other than slow moving passenger planes for a TWO HOUR period, completely unfettered by ANY sensible military response.

[Tim Howells]

17. Yeah, I agree.

However, Kevin did raise very interesting points that
need to be explained.

Tim Howells

[stickdog]

19. I have a theory on the first question.

The flight paths of the planes were simply preprogrammed by entering the desired route waypoints into the standard 757/767 autopilot computer. When Flights 77 and 93 were delayed at the gate, it forced everybody to stall between 9:15 and 9:40, making Bush, Rummy and Gen. Myers all look like complete idiots.

[Kevin Fenton]

21. It doesn't take much to make Bush look a complete idiot

The problem with an attack using passenger planes is that all takeoffs are always delayed, some more, some less. Most of the planes were delayed by the usual 10-15 minutes, the exception being United 93, which was delayed for 41 minutes. If it was a false-flag operation by the US government, wouldn't they (a) ensure the planes were not delayed that day, or (b) choose a better plan with less (no) uncontrollables?

I suppose you could preprogramme the flight computer as you suggested, but I don't think this is how it was done.

Anyway, how come the military response got worse? Planes were scrambled after American 11, nearly caught United 175, but got nowhere near American 77 and, according to the 9-11 Commission, wouldn't have stopped United 93 even if it had approached the Capitol at 10:30. It strikes me that the problem is not that SOP were not followed - they were (give or take) by Boston ATC and NEADS in response to the first hijacking, but then, when the scope of the crisis became apparent, the appropriate action (scrambling more fighters) was not taken - Washington was an obvious target, why wasn't it provided with CAP earlier? And why did Rummy join the videoconference alone from his office, rather than with the others from the NMCC? IMHO the air defense response starts poorly and then breaks down completely. I wonder who Rummy called when he went back into his office. It's a shame the phone logs for the White House for that day were lost in a computer screw-up. Maybe they would have been relevant.

If hijackers wanted to crash a group of planes into buildings, it would make sense for them to have the planes disappear to ATC. The best way to do this is to go into a radar gap, switch the transponder off, descend to VFR altitude (so it's not suspicious that there's no transponder signal from the plane) and exit the radar gap in a different direction. Primary radar doesn't show plane type or altitude, so there would be no way to tell what sort of plane was represented by a blip on an ATC's screen. American 77 was successful, American 11 and United 93 were unsuccessful (because they alerted ATC by broadcasting shouts and descending before they tried to disappear) and United 175 was diverted south before it was hijacked, so it probably wasn't anywhere near its assigned radar gap before it was hijacked and the hijackers just went straight for New York, without bothering to turn the transponder off properly. American 77 and United 93 flew so long in the wrong direction because they were going to their radar gaps. To me, the hijackers seem to be genuine, although I doubt they blew the WTC up.

[Sterling]

33. I think you are right.

The timing of the attacks got fucked up, thus you have unbelievable gaps of time between the attacks that make it obvious that the AF and military was prevented from protecting US that day.

[Tim Howells]

6. Don't let the bastards get you down, Delver

Remember the words of Arthur Schopenhauer:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."

Tim Howells

[Tim Howells]

7. Actually Schopenhauer forgot something ...

The first stage any great truth faces is being completely
ignored and buried. This was the case with September 11
for the first two or three years at least. Note that
the article you cite originates from the Weekly Standard -
a neoconservative rag. These guys are very close to
the center of what went down on September 11 2001, and
what has happened since (IMHO). Do you think they are
happy having to address this issue in any way shape or
form? Of course not!! The fact that they even mention
that this is even an issue is a sign of severe fear and
panic on their part. This is a cause for celebration.

Tim Howells

[delver]

10. yeah..

you guys are right, it is a good sign that we're even getting this kind of coverage. it's just hard to read such crap. and it's true, i didn't realize it was a weekly standard piece. i just came across it on www.911blogger.com and quickly put it up here for the DUers.

i wonder if CBS would publish a response or alternative view editorial for balance--someone who sees the importance/value in the Cynthia McKinney hearings...

[Tim Howells]

15. The Short answer is No.

> i wonder if CBS would publish a response or alternative view
> editorial for balance--someone who sees the importance/value
> in the Cynthia McKinney hearings...

From what I have seen, the mainstream media is even more
hostile to questions regarding September 11 than the
US Government itself, and even more pro-war in the Middle
East. We have to face up to the fact that we are up against
very powerful forces here. I have been particularly struck
by the support for the coverup by leftist organizations -
support that has been growing, seemingly in proportion to
the amount of the evidence coming out showing that this was
indeed false-flag terrorism.

Tim Howells

[bobbieinok]

31. would appreciate info on the 'leftist' groups supporting the coverup

[delver]

32. examples

democracy now! and nyc indymedia effectively have a blackout on 9/11 skepticism. other "progressive" media, such as "the nation" also refuse to take this issue seriously.

answer and ufpj are very careful not to be associated with 9/11 truth. thus much of the mainstream, anti-war left does support the coverup, by not supporting open discussion, debate and questioning.

[Sterling]

34. I find it strange that there are a hand full of members.

Whose posts are exclusively targeted at this forum to "debunk" skeptics. Why would any normal person do this?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.