Sunday, December 28, 2008
Joseph Welch)-Let’s take your thesis (that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, and covered up by a coalition of US government agencies, allied powers, big business and the media) as read. The following questions point to logical and factual gaps within that thesis. It is now up to you to answer these questions and explain why your theories are still valid. For your answers to be credible, they need to be detailed and based on verifiable evidence. No suppositions, no speculation, no unsupported assertions, just the facts. Stop “asking questions”, and provide answers. These fifteen initial questions will do for starters.
Stewart Bradley)- After looking over your 15 questions I have found most of them to be irrelevant to the main concerns of the 9/11 Truth movement and the LIHOP case which I focus on in particular. But I will answer these fifteen questions to the best of my abilities provided I get a civil and intelligent response to my four short questions posted below. Lets begin:
(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?
SB)- Your question asserts as fact that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Ahmed Shah Massoud's assassination. How do you know that some other involved faction did not commit the crime and use Al Qaeda as the scapegoat? The only people who know for sure are conveniently dead.
(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?
SB)- Here you assume that the CIA wanted the involvement of the Northern Alliance before the invasion. If the true motive of the war was the construction of the Trans-Afghani pipeline, along with occupational forces to guard the project, would Massoud and the NA have supported the invasion? Especially when the US already had Harmid Karzai, who was directly involved with the pipeline deal, to install as Afghanistan's new leader.
(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?
SB)- Despite the Bush administrations outrageous claim that there were no warnings of the 9/11 attack, there are dozens of documented reports of an imminent attack on America, many of which Osama bin Laden had access to. ( Many claiming to be from Al Qaeda. )
The real question is why our military allowed bin Laden to escape into Pakistan when we had him boxed in at Tora Bora?
(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?
SB)- Congratulations on telling your first bold faced deception. It has been well publicized that according to Condi Rice on September 9, two days before the attack, the final plans to go to war against the Taliban to begin in October were ready for President Bush to sign despite having no Congressional approval for any military action. It is critical to point out that without the 9/11 attack the Bush administration would not have had justification to use this plan.
(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?
SB)- While we could speculate for years, as to the true identities of the hijackers, or if there is any hard evidence that these men were really on board the doomed flights, it is clear that the attack was meant to incriminate Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network. Your guess may be as good as mine here, but considering this was the opening of the "War on Terror" the enemy "Boogymen" had to be portrayed as part of a world wide network and not linked specifically to one nation if they hoped to extend and expand the war as wide as possible.
To play devils advocate, it seems odd to me that these hijackers, who cleverly evaded detection for years, would on 9/11 suddenly leave such an obvious paper trail to their supposed identities, some of which are still in dispute.
(6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?
SB)- Indeed, how do bullies on the playground coerce the lunch money from smaller children? With threats of military action. I'm not sure if you recall our president telling the world, "If you are not with us you are against us", and how quickly all aforementioned countries joined the US led effort against terrorism, despite the US being instrumental in the creation of these very terror organizations.
(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?
SB)- Again your question is based on false information. First, if Pakistan was such a Taliban ally then why was the head of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmed meeting with Bush administration officials in Washington during the time of the attack, while approving funding to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta?
Secondly, at the end of the Cold War several major American energy companies began buying up oil supplies in the Caspian Sea region, including Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan which border Afghanistan. There were already US troops based in Uzbekistan before 9/11 to protect these oil supplies, which then became a staging area for the Afghanistan invasion.
(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?
SB)- Israel has obviously benefitted from the invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq, who were two known enemies of Israel, and certainly enjoys having US troops nearby to help protect it from it's other enemies in the region. Although I have personally seen no empirical evidence to suggest that the Mossad were involved in 9/11, it's always useful to debunkers to try to associate the 9/11 Truth Movement to anti-semitism and other hate based groups.
(9) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?
SB)- I don't personally believe that the story of the "dancing Israelis" is either true or relevant to the 9/11 case.
(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?
SB)- While this question is purely speculative and ignores the WTC anomalies that are in question, the tactic of using hijacked commercial aircraft in Kamikaze style attacks had been know about and planned for by our air defenses before 9/11.
If 9/11 was a false flag attack then using commercial planes is much more sinister because of the helpless people aboard the aircraft. And the timing of the second aircraft crash almost insured live coverage of the attack, providing the maximum psychological impact on the viewing public. And considering the technology available at the time, faking an attack like this would not be so difficult to carry out, providing one can explain why our air defenses did not intercept the flights, and can direct any resulting investigations into the attack.
(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?
SB)- While it is impossible to know whether Niaz Naik's story is legitimate the agreement for the pipeline deal was signed in December of 2002, while the construction of the pipeline (now called TAPI) has been hindered by the ongoing war.
(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?
SB)- Both of these scenarios assume incorrectly that a "stand down" scenario would require complicity with all NORAD personnel. These men follow orders in a chain of command and are informed of situations on a "need to know" basis. The person in charge and giving the orders is the only one who is responsible for their actions, or inactions. On the morning of 9/11 that person was Dick Cheney.
(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?
SB)- You do not need to convince me that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack, rather you need to convince the FBI. To this day the FBI claims it has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11 and the 9/11 attack is conspicuously absent from his list of crimes on their website. While it only took three months to obtain a Federal indictment against bin Laden for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings, there has been no indictment issued for 9/11 after 7 years of searching. The justice department isn't even trying to get an indictment. What do they know that you can't seem to accept as reality?
Now let's assume there was no direct history between Osama and the CIA and that Al Qaeda is not being sponsored to justify the War on Terror, do you mean to tell me you Did Al Qaeda have a grudge against old, asbestos laden buildings?
(15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?
SB)- The obvious reason is that if popular and outspoken Truthers would start dying in mysterious accidents it would only serve to raise suspicions about what they are saying. Why go to all the trouble of assassinating the Truthers when the guilty parties have the media power to assassinate their character by publicly denouncing them as "loony moonbats" while preventing any serious debate about their claims on any mainstream media source. Small radio shows and internet videos aren't considered a threat when they know most Americans only get their information from major network news broadcasts.
There, I answered your questions. Now will you answer my four short and simple questions?:
1. Why did the Bush administration ignore 9/11 warnings and obstruct FBI investigations?
2. Who scheduled the multiple military war games for the morning of 9/11?
3. Why did the Bush administration try to block the 9/11 investigation?
4. The FEMA funded study by WPI documented WTC steel melting. How did this steel melt?
I look forward to your answers but I won't hold my breath.
With all due respect..... Stewart Bradley
Beyond 15 Questions; Historical Context of 9/11
Conflicting Sources: Another Final Note to Joseph Welch
Master Debaters: A tribute to Joseph Welch
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
In case you missed it:
"We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own."
Here is a similar account:
"I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down, because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. That I don’t know, I can’t attest to the validity of that...
...and they did use the word, we’re gonna have to bring it down. And, for us, there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility. Given the subsequent controversy over it, I don’t know."
She obviously interpreted their statements as referring to the building being brought down that day, as opposed to weeks or months later, as would have to be the case unless the it was already rigged with explosives.
Update:Over at JREF "johnny karate" says:
"Bonus: Title of a blog entry from December 24, 2008: 'Newly Surfaced Video Proves Existence of Plan to 'Take Down' Building 7' complete with link to a prisonplanet.com article titled 'FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To 'Take Down’ WTC7'. So this guy is just another FDNY-hating scumbag. Classy stuff."
I do not believe that any members of the FDNY were involved. The second related link I provided debunks the notion that FDNY foreknowledge and complicity are synonymous. Singh does state that "they did use the word, we’re gonna have to bring it down," but Rastuccio's account indicates they were just passing down information they heard about the building possibly being brought down.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog also debunks himself in his entry a "A Spot of Debunking" when he states:
Nobody has explained why controlled demolition should be as fast as free-fall speed in the first place. This seems to be just assumed.First of all, as is pointed out in the video a slowing of the descent of the building as it begins to pile up and encounter resistance is to be expected. Secondly, the more reputable 9/11 researchers like Jim Hoffman of the website 911research.wtc7.net have never claimed that the buildings fell at exactly free-fall speed.
Here's a page with the Southwark Towers demolition, which Steven Jones cited in one of his lectures as a very good comparable for the WTC. You have to click on the third icon from the left on the bottom row to see this demo.
Watching carefully, I estimated that the roof on the left building started sagging right around 38.24 into the movie, and that the top of the building hit ground at about 45.69. Thus the duration of the collapse was about 7.45 seconds. From this page we know that the roof of the building was about 98 meters high, or approximately 323 feet. But a building of 323 feet should not take 7.45 seconds to collapse in free fall, it should only take 4.5 seconds by the formula 16*4.5^2=323.
And indeed, there is no reason to expect that controlled demolition results in a free-fall collapse of a building.
In regard to the Twin Towers Hoffman states that the Towers' tops fell virtually unimpeded. He points out that "in a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof," but this does not factor in air resistance, which alone could account for the 15 second fall time, he states:
The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.Again, in regard to WTC 7 Hoffman points out that it plunged at a nearly free-fall rate.
If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?
Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.
Debunking the Debunkers' Free Fall Fallacies
EXCLUSIVE: To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them
Sunday, December 21, 2008
August 15, 2004
is, like George Bush, a Texas oil executive who had business dealings with reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mafouz, suggests Texas is smaller than they say it is.
Editor's note: That picture up top is what a real coincidence looks like. ;)
Monday, December 15, 2008
UPDATED February 12, 2009:
It has come to my attention, from Mark Roberts himself, that the person I was debating here was not Roberts. While ClunkityClunk4Truth used Roberts homepage as a contact site on the his YouTube channel, it turns out Mark Roberts has never debated via YouTube comments.
I humbly apologize to Mark Roberts for this case of mistaken identities and publicly admit my error in believing I had debated him. While we may disagree on this topic, Mr Roberts is an honorable man who has graciously corrected me and I hope to clear his name from any damage this error may have caused him.
I also apologize to my readers for the mistake and promise to be more cautious in the future. As Prison Planet's Paul Joseph Watson has pointed out in a similar error,"We're all trying to get to the truth here and we will issue retractions when we are led astray."
At Mark Roberts request, here is the original article as posted, keeping in mind that Clunkity is not Mr Roberts as I had incorrectly assumed. Again, my sincerest apologies and respect to Mr Roberts.
Mark Roberts has been called "The Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers" and gained fame as the "most effective" opposition to the 9/11 truth movement. Although he works as a New York City tour guide, he has dedicated a website against those who question the official version the 9/11 attack, and until recently hosted a 9/11 debunking YouTube channel under the name ClunkityClunk4Truth .
After reading his research and following many of his arguments with 9/11 researchers, some lasting for days, I decided to contact him and respectfully ask his opinion about a video I posted, " The 9/11 Cheney Connection", about the evidence of official complicity. The following is the transcript of our interaction. Because of YouTube's 500 character limit and prohibiting the use of URLs I have edited the content to keep topics to together and added links to referenced information. But you can read the original transcript in the comments section of the video to verify the content. Here is the original video along with the "rebuttal" video I refer to in the exchange.
"The 9/11 Cheney Connection"
"9/11 Cheney Rebuttal"
Thanks for replying Clunkity, and having watched many of your videos I have seen you point out many other ( 9/11) flaws. As a 7 year researcher I would agree with you that MUCH Truth research is based on speculation and cannot be proved, but do you really contend that ALL Truthers claims are bunk? If so, then I have found some anomalies that I would like some serious answers to, things that other debunkers have refused to address - "9/11 Cheney Connection."
Maybe you can help me? Thanks.
Mark Roberts ( ClunkityClunk4Truth ):
Your video is pretty misleading, I shall take a crack at it.
COMMENTS ON "9/11 CHENEY CONNECTION":
Your quotation of PNAC is misleading, as on pg. 74 it reads "In Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia, enduring U.S. security interests argue forcefully for an enduring American military presence." which, rather than what you're trying to put across, many countries ask for our military on their land.
I assume you've read the whole PNAC document (RAD). Do you deny the plan suggests a military intervention in the middle east to pursue a "Pax Americana" democratization of hostile nations? What do you think the overall plan suggests if not?
Where does this idea that false blips would be on the radar screens come from? Whose screens? Where does the idea that the drills were set by the Bush Administration for September?
There are lots of sites that describe how part of these drills inserted false radar blips. Google "wargames and drills masterlist" for just some. But the point is how all these drills were all scheduled to coincide with the real attack.
'Possibly contributing, with continued radar inserts, to the presence of "ghost planes" like the phantom Flight 11 that distracted fighters from Flights 77 and 93.'
From the link you sent me to. Doesn't prove that false blips were put on radar screens nor provides any source that states Cheney ordered the NORAD drills.
Air traffic controllers claim they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down, long after the military claims they purged the phantom war-game-related radar signals.
And as in the "Rebuttal", when Bush signed the May 2001 order, Cheney was put in charge of exercises. You still elude the point as why they were all set for 9/11?
'what they thought were hijacked planes'
Now compare this to:
'false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down'
But all the ATCs say is they were tracking planes assumed, incorrectly, to be hijacked. Did those flights actually exist?
'the point as why they were all set for 9/11?'
Which of the NORAD operations were not run for more than a year? Were the drills held other times only for them to then be set for 9/11?
If those flight were real they would have had transponder signals identifying them from the "phantom" flights.
And Google "ONE 9/11 WAR GAME NOW IN MAINSTREAM PRESS" for more details on the drills.
Your source implies that Dick Cheney would be coordinating the NORAD drills since he was put in place of overseeing drills related to WMDs. That makes no sense. Other than that the article does nothing for me.
Bush's mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney. This included all "training and planning" within the Departments of Defense. If Cheney did not plan these drills himself then whoever did was under Cheney's command.
Please. I know you are intelligent enough to understand this yet you continue to dodge the relevant question of why this unusual number of drills were scheduled during the time of the real attack.
"67 scrambles claim"
Assuming those 67 scrambles were indeed successful, those intercepts occured outside the continental U.S. by NORAD. NORAD's pre-9/11 mission has been to defend America's skies from foreign threats. NORAD's pre-9/11 mission did not deal in hijacked flights within the U.S. intended to be used as missles. Regardless, aircraft were scrambled by NEADS but were not given enough time to intercept any flights.
If you suggest NORAD did not monitor domestic US airspace then why had they already conducted drills simulating hijacking of planes from inside the US airspace? To prepare for something they were not expecting?
Regardless - if aircraft were scrambled according to the old standard hijacking procedures they could have been in time, but Rumsfeld changed these proceedures. Why? And why was this change in SOP not discussed by the 9/11 Commission?
'why had they already conducted drills simulating hijacking of planes from inside the US airspace'
What NORAD drill included hijacked flights originating from within continental U.S airspace?
'if aircraft were scrambled...'
It took the fighter jet an hour and a half to reach Payne Stewart's Learjet even with its transponder on. Time from scramble order matters too.
'Rumsfeld changed these proceedures'
I thought Dick did?
'change in SOP'
Nothing really changed.
1997 SOP document:
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
2001 SOP changes:
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference D, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
So what changed? Redundacy has been dropped and some words have been switched. There's no 'there' there.
USA Today reported in April 2004 that NORAD had run exercises before 9/11 simulating suicide hijacking attacks: Most of these drills imagined hijackings originating overseas, but USA Today noted one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington State that were "hijacked." This drill was "conducted later" than July 2001, but not after September 11, and the date is apparently classified.
Rumsfeld, as I stated in my "rebuttal" video, signed the order at the request of Cheney, making the distinction that approval of the Secretary of Defense, ( or higher) was required before and military aircraft could respond.
You misquote Mineta's testimony about what happened in the bunker. The exchange with Hamilton indicated that the order told in the Mineta recollection was a shoot-down order by Bush:
"We had that order given, I think it was by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Were you there when that order was given?"
And later Mineta states that he "subsequently" found out what the order was.
It should be noted that first quoted person was Commissioner Lee Hamilton.
Mineta still stands by his testimony that he was referring to Flight 77 nearing the Pentagon when Cheney issued his "of course the order still stands" quote. This was before the Pentagon was hit. He has clarified this many times.
The 9/11 commission and the media continue misquoting Mineta saying it was in reference to Flight 93.
Yet Cheney's unsworn interview testimony is still contradicted by Mineta, Clark, NORAD, NEADS, and NMCC. Shouldn't he have given his testimony under oath?
For Mineta to have his time right then not only must Cheney be wrong, but so too the Secret Service logs (which dicuss Cheney being taken to a underground hallway for protection at around 9:30am when the first reports of a unidentified aircraft came through), the Whitehouse phone logs (which showed when the President and Vice President discussed the shoot down order), the news reporting of the Whitehouse evacuation...
(which reported people running from the white house and nearby buildings at 9:45am, 25 mintes after Mineta claims it happened), and the testimony of all the others that were there, including Mrs Cheney (who arrived at 9:50am, yet whom Mineta said was there before he arrived at 9:20am) and the officer who was speaking to Cheney. Either everyone else in that room at the time is lying, or Mineta got the time wrong. Which is more likely?
The 9/11 Commission admits the 9:37 entry time for Cheney was based on the Secret Service report alarm data and is undocumented, while Mineta's early arrival testimony is consistent with reports from Richard Clark, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, White House photographer David Bohrer, and ABC, BBC, and WSJ. This is discussed in great detail in chapter 2 of David Ray Griffin's book "9/11 Contradictions."
( Mark Roberts then comments on a separate post from "FightTheElite", not the video.)
'What about the 3 supposed suicide terrorist hijackers who after 9/11 turned out to be alive and outraged?'
Case of mistaken identity. Those who were listed after 9/11 as hijackers and believed they were wrongly accused had different names, birth dates, family members, etc.
Although I don't mention the hijackers in my video, FBI director Robert Meuller did announce the hijackers were probably using stolen identities.
But the final list of hijackers and their identities are unique to them, as those who feel were wrongly accused turned out to have different birth dates, birth places, occupation and family than those named as the terrorists.
If these are the true hijackers, then 3 of the hijackers had been trained at the Pensacola navel air station, one attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School, 2 attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, and Mohamed Atta himself attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base.
Men trained by our own military?
And several were issued Visas despite being on the terrorist watch list. Is this any less incriminating?
There were no hijackers training in Florida. Again the three individuals listed at the Pensacola station have different birth dates from the hijackers listed.
The DLI is a cultural learning center for the DoD, were the hijackers learning Spanish while planning 9/11?
'Men trained by our own military?'
If that was the case, then that means the 'hijackers are still alive' conspiracy is based on a dumb assumption: The evil NWO wouldn't kill those claimed to have perpetrated 9/11.
"No hijackers training in Florida?
What about the two pilots who trained at Huffman Aviation flight school in Venice, Fla. and a third who trained at Florida Flight Training. Both foreign owned flight schools, one with CIA connections, as reported by Daniel Hopsicker?
Again, I did not include anything about the hijackers in my video and I most certainly did not mention any NWO.
( At this point there are no further replies from Mark Roberts on the "9/11 Cheney Connection" video. Two days later I saw another post from Roberts on the video,"Bamboozled again by 9/11 Truthers" )
The only liars are Truthers.
"The only liars are Truthers."
Oh really? I do appreciate you taking a crack at debunking the "9/11 Cheney Connection" video. You could find only a few minor discrepancies, ( which I then rebutted) and never addressed the actual case against Cheney the video lays out. Doesn't that mean anything to you? Or are you so devoted to your ideology that you can no longer think objectively and admit when "Truthers" might have a legitimate point?
Sorry but I thought you were smarter than that.
I quit trying to talk to a brick wall, sorry stool.
( My reply is then blocked from the video comments, so I posted my reply on ClunkityClunk4Truth's channel comments.)
So you raised minor questions about my video, and I answered them in a clear and respectful way, so you write me off as a "brick wall?"
You don't seem to have a problem endlessly debating the "brick walls" who claim WTC demolitions.
I assume you are not used to loosing debates because I have done nothing more than defend my position. Did I hurt your pride?
I apologize if I have offended you, but I was expecting more from someone with your expert reputation.
( No reply and end of interaction.)
It's tough to imagine from this dialogue how Roberts could have gained such fame as an "expert debunker" when the man clearly avoided talking about the evidence I presented and changed the subject whenever he was shown to be incorrect. It was a week or two later when YouTube suspended his channel due to copyright violations.
Honest Mistakes are "big news" to Mark Roberts
Face off with the Debunkers, Part 2 - Ryan Owens
Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?
Richard Gage, AIA, debates Mark Roberts, Tour Guide: NY TV: "HardFire"
Mark Roberts, an Apologist for EPA Lies
Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts
He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules
The errors of Mark Roberts
December 14, 2008
Professor Blair Gadsby returned to Senator McCain's office with another request to meet with the senator to discuss the evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Members of Phoenix 9-11 Truth organized a street action outside the office in support of Blair's effort to reach Senator McCain.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Alleged 9/11 Plotters Offer to Confess at Guantánamo - What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement?
Yes, the alleged 9/11 plotters have offered to confess at Guantánamo, so perhaps you are asking yourself what this means to the 9/11 truth movement? The answer is nothing.
Many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was an inside job.
Just because the evidence suggests that rouge criminal elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.
From 2006: FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
911myths.com states that Betsy Glick in the FBI Public Affairs office told them that, "The information provided at that time by the (now retired) Investigative Publicity Unit Chief, who was not an agent nor a counterterrorism expert, does not accurately explain the situation."
Contradictory statements aside, in 2001 then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the government would soon "put out a paper ... that will describe clearly the evidence that we have linking" bin Laden to 9/11. One day later the government reneged on this pledge and no such paper has ever been offered. So it seems that the first statement from the FBI was the honest one. Bin Laden has admitted to being involved in 9/11, but just like the FBI he has made contraduictory statements and denied his guilt on three reported occasions, including once on video, but this doesn't mean he wasn't involved. Afterall, there is circumstantial evidence against him in the form of a video showing him meeting with with some of the hijackers. And as 911myths.com points out, "Since 9/11, al-Qaeda have released footage of several of the hijackers. These include a number of video wills, where they talk about jihad and attacking America." Click here for more info.
And as Nicholas Levis, an original 9/11 skeptic and one of the founders of 911Truth.org, has stated:
Staging 9/11 as an inside job is going to work best (in fact, is likely to work only) if there actually exists an active network of anti-American terrorists who are deeply committed to killing Americans in response to U.S. policy. In other words, those who would blame Qaeda need a (relatively) real Qaeda. A partly-real enemy is much better than an entirely fabricated one.Evidence to support this premise:
The most robust way for insider masterminds to stage 9/11 and get away with it is to arrange for their agents to infiltrate among "real foreign terrorists." Let them come up with their own plots (or plant plots among them), choose a plot that will produce the results desired by the masterminds, and see that through to fruition. At some point, the masterminds and their agents will hijack the plot from the would-be hijackers, to make sure it happens. You won't risk the whole game on the ability of amateurs to get away with it, you will help them along or even replace them (with a remote control hijacking, for example). But it's best to have "real terrorists" in play. They leave a more solid trail of evidence internationally. Cops and agents and academics of two dozen countries can honestly confirm the existence of an al-Qaeda network. That way there is less need to initiate outside observers into the plot and you don't have to hope they are all stupid, as they would have to be to fall for a complete fabrication of "Qaeda." (Qaeda at this point is just a term of convenience for the Islamist extremist networks.)
The best result would be for a whole bunch of Islamist extremists running around believing that their crew pulled off 9/11 all by themselves (how inspiring for them!). The patsies should believe they actually did it. This was the case with the Reichstag Fire and Marinus van der Lubbe: the patsy believed he had done it.
U.S. and Allied Intelligence Services Had Penetrated The Very Highest Levels of Al Qaeda Prior to 9/11Even if we accept that bin Laden and gang were the masterminds of 9/11 it does not negate a slew of evidence indicating that they were allowed to succeed and had their results amplified. 9/11 very well could have been an inside and an outside job.
Triple Cross or Inside Job? - One of al-Qaeda’s top trainers in terrorism and how to hijack airplanes, who was a very close associate of Bin Laden, was an American citizen who was an operative for the FBI, the CIA, and the Army. Indeed, while he was acting as an FBI informant, he smuggled Bin Laden in and out of Afghanistan, helped plan the attacks on US embassies in Africa, and apparently played a pivotal role in planning 9/11. - Source
“LIHOP” vs. “MIHOP”?
The LIHOP Case against Cheney and Bush
December 07, 2008
In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged freefall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance.
They previously admitted that the diesel fuel on the premises "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," and that "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse." They admitted that it fell "almost uniformly as a single unit," and now they also admit that it fell at free fall speed, these are all points that truthers have been making for years, and that "debunkers" vehemently refuted. So in the end NIST says that fire is the culprit, and that it was "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings," causing, in their words "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," yet again another point truthers have spoke of for years. Next thing you know they'll be admitting there was molten metal in the rubble too! So, apparently appeal to authority makes classic characteristics of controlled demolition morph into new characteristics for a building fire.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
What I have written below is directed to all of those who are willing to believe the "official story from the 9/11 commission".
It is also directed to those who will see all of this evidence then shrug their shoulders and say -
What can I do? I am just one person.
Well if all of those people who said that, got together, they would discover that they are quite a few.
If nothing else, when those corrupt demons in disguise, try to do this mess again (and they will) you will be in the know, and not so inclined to swallow the official bull - hook, line and sinker as the saying goes...
So America--You claim you want the truth about it all.
You claim that you have always known that our Government has lied to us.
You claim that all politicians are dishonest.
You claim that everyone in government is corrupt.
Well if after viewing the video below You do not make an outcry :))))
Then there is no hope for You or this country.
We will assume that You Like being lied to, would rather remain a sheeple,
and are quite content with the illusion of your life.
We will assume that you endorse the way our government has represented our interests in the world.
After all why should you rock the boat?
There has been more than enough evidence to reopen an investigation into 9/11.
People have been put away for life in prison or executed on much less.
The thing that gets me is that people will talk out of one side of their mouth on how much bull comes out of politicians mouths, watch them lie to get elected, then smile and call that politics.
Then when the lying to get the job people; who misrepresented their whole lives so that the people would elect the most popular player of the game, get in office; you people are surprised when they continue their lies?
Now all of the sudden they are incapable of lying to the public about whatever?
Are you people for real?
You cannot be that stupid.
The government thinks you are and they count on your selfishness and self centeredness.
They think you are easy to deceive.
The corrupt people in power are commonly known as the alphabet soup gang.
They lie to the President, the Congress, the Senate, and to us.
It has been reported that many in Congress and the Senate who consistently vote on the side of Money, have invested and/or are making lots of money from these endeavors in War.
It has been said that we are a war economy.
There are the various branches of military higher ups in cahoots with big business billionaires of the world.
CIA, NSA, GE corp. along with many other people/corporations are war profiteers.
They are under the illusion that this is how to put America to work.
They make this work this way:)))))
"We must help the world, we must rid the world of evil doers, those others, this creates new jobs, money flows, their idea of democracy rules, the world according to their warped philosophy of what Christianity is spreads around the world,"the bad guys" who have different religious beliefs lose, and all is right with the world."
Oh yes they get rich and have greater power.
Most importantly you get a J-O-B!!!
You will work like a slave for them, they will get rich, you will die much younger, completely wore out from all the chemical exposures and stress along with the bad food they will feed you because that is all about jobs.
When politicians promise you jobs, this is what they are talking about.
The sad part of it all is that no one has ever questioned this philosophy en-mass.
People were happy as long as their style of living wasn't bothered.
The horror of it all is this concept is clearly a lack of love for ones fellow humanity.
A complete and utter disregard of the gentle Nazarene's teachings.
We the people have allowed this. It seems that people are easy to deceive.
People will believe a lie and then haggle over what truth is when it is staring them in the face.
People will believe a politicians mirage, accept it as fact on NO EVIDENCE and when real evidence is presented by people who have nothing to gain and much to lose,
like their lives, their reputation, and much more:))))
They will argue the real evidence with the Illusionary smokescreen evidence that people who have everything to gain profit wise, who are known deceivers, have fed them.
What can we the people do about it?
Let them know you know what they are doing!
Tell them ENOUGH already!!
The single most important effective thing one can do about it is this- stop giving these people /corporations your money.
STOP playing the game.
It is their game and it is rigged.
Stop believing whatever they feed you.
Do your own research!
Stop looking for a leader to save you and make it better.
BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD!!!!
Under False Flag: UnterFalscherFlagge.com
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Scroll down past the videos for related info...