loose change;991 docementary

[livingdeath]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7WsyEqKQRBY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7WsyEqKQRBY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

90minutes long
the truth hurts

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8372366181300641663

Much, better. It sticks to the facts and does not fight pseudoscience with pseudoscience .

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

or http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

[livingdeath]

good vids,thanks.

[cooncat]

You might want to post individual arguments from the documentary here, as opposed to just dumping the whole hour and a half on us. There is some seriously flawed logic and bad science displayed in loose change, but I could scarcely expose it all here. Some of their arguments are just bad, others are good but they draw conclusions from them that aren't supported by the evidence.

I would really doubt it if the gov't was telling us everything they know about the attacks, but the idea that the whole thing was orchestrated by bush & co, and that the towers were taken down in controlled demo's while the pentagon was struck by a missile, is frankly unsupported by any evidence.

Post individual arguments and I'll show you.

[livingdeath]

it was a controlled demolition,you can see the squibs all the way down.kinda hard to explain that away.

[Evil]

Aliens caused 9-11

prove they didn't

[cooncat]

it was a controlled demolition,you can see the squibs all the way down.kinda hard to explain that away.

What you call "squibs", other people would call "large masses of air and debris being forced out of lower floors due to the thousands of tons of collapsing material being forced upon them from above. I.E., exactly what you'd expect to find if the building was collapsing naturally, from the point of impact down.

Compare the footage of the "squibs" (which can be seen if you look closely):

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc1_jets.mpeg

With footage of an actual controlled demolition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Note, among the numerous other inconsistencies, that there were nothing that looked remotely like the supposed "squibs" in the *actual* controlled demo, and we know they were used there! Also, note that in a controlled demolition, the building collapsed from the base, not from the top down, pancaking like the WTC towers did.

Also, if you are implying (as most 9/11 conspiracy theorists are) that Bush & Co orchestrated the attacks as a preface for war in the middle east, why would they choose to bring the towers down in such a way? Why go through the trouble of staging a hijacking and crashing planes into the towers, only to then blow them up in a controlled demo? Couldn't they cut out the whole hijacking part and just blow the towers up straight away? After all, just a few years earlier a well-publicized terrorist plot to bring the towers down via bomb was foiled. It would certainly be more believable *and* less elaborate than what actually transpired.

[cooncat]

Aliens caused 9-11

prove they didn't

A planet exists in the universe that is made entirely of interstellar jell-o and is populated entirely by unicorns. Also, Bill Cosby is actually God.

Prove otherwise.

;)

I know your post was in jest, but it's important to note that it's impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Many conspiracy theorists forget this, and instead believe that finding a hole or gap in our understanding of an event somehow gives credence to another, more spectacular explanation with even less supporting evidence.

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

This is why I dislike movies like loose change. Lot's of theories that you can't prove at this point in time.

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

Why not focus on foreknowledge?

Why not talk about Obstruction of Justice. How fbi agents were taken off the track of bin laden and terrorist suspects? why not talk about Sibel Edmonds, Robert G. Wright, and Colleen Rowley.

why not talk about the money man Pakistan ISI general Mahmoud Ahmad meeting with Geroge tenet day's before 9/11?

why not talk about the lack of air defense on 9/11?


NOOOOOO! LETS TALK ABOUT EXPLOSIONS AND MISSILE'S!!! YAAAAYY
Because that's only with those crazy 9/11 kooks believe in right?? or at least that's what the so-called de-bunkers say.

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

Everything I said can be sourced. Some links dont work, just google around. IF there is one story you can't find tell me.

Foreknowledge
---------------

March 1999: Germany Provides CIA Hijacker’s Name and Telephone Number
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24TERR.html

August 12, 2000: Italian Intelligence Wiretap of al-Qaeda Cell Reveals Massive Aircraft-based Strike
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a081200italy

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
http://www.thememoryhole.org/faz-article.htm

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack
http://web.archive.org/web/20010923042516/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092001probe.story

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=alatesummer01jordan

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=331115

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/09/eveningnews/main525012.shtml

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
http://www.sundayherald.com/24822

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=215843&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Before September 11, 2001: Three Countries Hear bin Laden Tell Wife to Return to Afghanistan; This Warning Sets Off ‘Scramble’ in US and Elsewhere
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=abefore911threecountries

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090401mossad

September 7, 2001: Priest Is Told of Plot to Attack US and Britain Using Hijacked Airplanes
http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=9943

September 7, 2001: French Give ‘Very Specific Information’ about Possible Attack on US Soil
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090701frenchwarn

Early September 2001: Sharp Increase in Short Selling of American and United Airlines Stocks
http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2001-09-26-suspicious-trading.htm

Early September 2001: Almost Irrefutable Proof of Insider Trading in Germany
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34910,00.html
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/woil23.xml
http://web.archive.org/web/20011030000143/www.miami.com/herald/special/news/worldtrade/digdocs/021340.htm

September 6-10, 2001: Suspicious Trading of Put Option Contracts on American and United Airlines Occur
http://web.archive.org/web/20020215082158/http://cjonline.com/stories/091901/ter_tradingacts.shtml

September 11, 2001: More Than $100 Million Rushed from WTC
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=insiderTrading

FEMA in place on September 10th for drill in lower manhattan.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#fema

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

Here are those wacky muslim extremist!! Who ocassional do some coke BUT WHO DOESN'T.

Hijackers AND others
----------

Muslim extremist, Mohamed Atta, apparently has american girlfriend, drinks alcohol and snorts coke:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7746174590105525480&q=Mohamed+Atta&pl=true

January-May 2000: CIA Has Atta Under Surveillance
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=ableDanger

MSNBC archive: hijackers trained at US bases?:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html

MSNBC: Osama a former CIA asset:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp

Two 9/11 hijackers lived with FBI informant:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2...ain521223.shtml

Top FBI agents told to back off from investigating al Qaeda hijackers months before 9/11
http://www.laweekly.com/news/new...e-whistle/3706/

FBI agents say government is protecting terrorists, covering up 9/11:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/2469.shtml

August 24-29, 2001: Hijackers Buy 9/11 Plane Tickets Using Their Apparent Real Names
http://web.archive.org/web/20010922164519/www.miami.com/herald/special/news/worldtrade/digdocs/000518.htm

CIA 'had 9/11 hijacker details'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3516233.stm



THOSE TO LAZY TO READ WATCH THIS VIDEO.
MOHAMMED ATTA AND THE FLYING CIRCUS (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6456867285177039347&q=MOHAMMED+ATTA+AND+THE+FLYING+CIRCUS&hl=en)

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

NO! We cant just ignore the warnings, we have to interfere with investigations as well! BUT THAT'S JUST IGNORANCE AGAIN RIGHT?


Obstruction of Justice
------------------------

September 2000: Military Lawyers Prevent Able Danger From Sharing Information about Atta and Others with FBI
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html

Able Danger, 2.5 terabytes ordered destroyed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9342936/

September 2000: Chart With Mohamed Atta’s Photo Presented by Able Danger at SOCOM Headquarters; Meetings With FBI Cancelled
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/sep_05/shaffer_interview.html

US agents told to back off bin Ladens
http://prisonplanet.com/us_agents_told_to_backoff.html

FBI agents told to "back off" from investigating al Qaeda months before
9/11: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ Archiv...4293682,00.html

FBI agent goes to her superiors with documents from pre 9/11 that al Qaeda was going to strike with hijacked airlines:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...1- 2004Apr8.html

FBI agent blocked by higher ups on uncovering plot:
http://www.latimes.com/news/prin...lines- frontpage

Top FBI agents told to back off from investigating al Qaeda hijackers months before 9/11
http://www.laweekly.com/news/new...e-whistle/3706/

FBI agents drop 9/11 bombshell:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/another_fbi_agent_blows_the_whistle.htm

FBI agent robert wright warned the WTC was going to be attacked soon based on evidence field agents found, and that a terrorist attack was imminent, but he was told to shut up:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/...30/ 161204.shtml

FBI agents say government is protecting terrorists, covering up 9/11:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/2469.shtml

US allowed top al Qaeda and Taliban flee to safety:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...? artid=38382324

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0510,webmondo2,61790,6.html

FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley "bombshell" memo
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

FBI whistleblower Robert G. Wright
http://www.prisonplanet.com/another_fbi_agent_blows_the_whistle_on_911.htm

Money Trail
-------------

"Money man" Pakistan ISI general Mahmoud Ahmad,meets with George Tenet, then head of the CIA plus others. DAYS before 9/11.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266520,00.html

Pakistan Lobbies 9/11 Commission
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

"Coincidences"
---------------

40-year-old FAA rule that allowed Armed Pilots inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/armed_pilots_banned_2_months_before_911.htm

September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

Bush Senior and Bin Ladens Brother attend Carlyle Group meeting at Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, On 9/11.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/041203metwithbinladen.html

May 2001: Medics Train for Airplane Hitting Pentagon
http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=272&issueID=31

June 16, 2001: Major Simulated Terrorist Attack Exercise is Held in Pennsylvania (near flight 93 crash site)
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90895.html

Early August 2001: Mass Casualty Exercise at the Pentagon Includes a Plane Hitting the Building
http://www.peterson.af.mil/hqafspc/News/News_Asp/nws_tmp.asp?storyid=02-214

Before September 11, 2001: US Government simulated terrorist attacks involving Multiple-Planes
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

Before September 11, 2001: NORAD Plans a Mock Simultaneous Hijacking Threat from Inside the US "Delta pilots and actors posing as passengers"
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/04/lt.08.html

All of the five alleged Flight 77 hijackers lived in a motel right outside the gates of the NSA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2033791.stm

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

For fuck's sake. All I really want is a an bipartisan investigation, that looks at everything on the table. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR.

Or am I un-american for spewing such blasphemy?

[Evil]

For fuck's sake. All I really want is a an bipartisan investigation, that looks at everything on the table. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR.

Or am I un-american for spewing such blasphemy?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/index.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LYN406A.html
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=1478

You can do better then that evil!

[cooncat]

Why not focus on foreknowledge?

Why not talk about Obstruction of Justice. How fbi agents were taken off the track of bin laden and terrorist suspects? why not talk about Sibel Edmonds, Robert G. Wright, and Colleen Rowley.

why not talk about the money man Pakistan ISI general Mahmoud Ahmad meeting with Geroge tenet day's before 9/11?

why not talk about the lack of air defense on 9/11?


NOOOOOO! LETS TALK ABOUT EXPLOSIONS AND MISSILE'S!!! YAAAAYY
Because that's only with those crazy 9/11 kooks believe in right?? or at least that's what the so-called de-bunkers say.

I'm a little confused about what conclusion you are trying to draw from all this...are trying to imply that the Bush admin actually orchestrated 9/11, or that they had advanced knowledge but allowed it to happen, or that they had advanced knowledge but were unable to prevent it? What exactly do you take all these "facts" about foreknowledge and obstruction of justice to mean?

...and by saying we should talk about these things instead of "explosions and missiles" are you admitting that the popular theory of controlled demolitions is not supported by evidence, and therefore the "official story" regarding the actual destruction of the towers and pentagon is correct?

I need to know your exact position to know how to argue against it (or agree with you, who knows).

[Evil]

You can do better then that evil!

:suicide2:

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

I'm a little confused about what conclusion you are trying to draw from all this...are trying to imply that the Bush admin actually orchestrated 9/11, or that they had advanced knowledge but allowed it to happen, or that they had advanced knowledge but were unable to prevent it? What exactly do you take all these "facts" about foreknowledge and obstruction of justice to mean?

...and by saying we should talk about these things instead of "explosions and missiles" are you admitting that the popular theory of controlled demolitions is not supported by evidence, and therefore the "official story" regarding the actual destruction of the towers and pentagon is correct?

I need to know your exact position to know how to argue against it (or agree with you, who knows).

The Conclusion I came to from following the evidence is that, a small group of individuals within the united states government allowed, and assisted the attacks (by telling FBI agents and others to back off, and possibly, purposely planning multiple war games to make sure NORAD was FUBAR'D).

As, for the missile at the pentagon hoax, it's exactly that a HOAX. The damage is consisted with that of an aircraft. PERIOD
The controlled demolition hypothesis is interesting but I find it to hard to believe, but to say there isn't one piece of evidence to support this hypothesis is quite inane. Especially looking at WTC7. I'm still very much up in the air when it comes to demolitions, and or the 'pancake' theory farce.

[cooncat]

The Conclusion I came to from following the evidence is that, a small group of individuals within the united states government allowed, and assisted the attacks (by telling FBI agents and others to back off, and possibly, purposely planning multiple war games to make sure NORAD was FUBAR'D).

As, for the missile at the pentagon hoax, it's exactly that a HOAX. The damage is consisted with that of an aircraft. PERIOD
The controlled demolition hypothesis is interesting but I find it to hard to believe, but to say there isn't one piece of evidence to support this hypothesis is quite inane. Especially looking at WTC7. I'm still very much up in the air when it comes to demolitions, and or the 'pancake' theory farce.

Thanks for clearing that up. Your position is a lot more moderate and defensible than most conspiracy believers.

Personally, I think it would be ridiculous for anyone to assert that the Gov't is telling us everything they know about 9/11. I'm sure there is intelligence and other info that is being kept on the down low...the part where things get shady is when people start asserting that such things are evidence of malicious activity. Rather, I think they are evidence of incompetence. Remember, we're talking about an administration that can't even handle planting some WMDs in Iraq for our soldiers to "find", and save a little face...we're talking about an administration that can't even keep the fact that they fired some attorneys for political reasons under wraps.

Much of the evidence of obstruction of justice and foreknowledge consists of exaggerated claims and misleading quotes taken out of context. You mentioned Robert Wright and Coleen Rowley...hoax believers claim that Wright had his terrorism investigation shut down in early 2001, but he was actually taken off the case in 1999 under the Clinton admin, and his investigation being cut short likely had nothing to do with the attacks that would happen two years later. Coleen Rowley is a classic case of quote abuse. If you read all of Rowley's letter, not just the excerpt that talks about the FBI deliberately sabotaging terrorism investigations, you'd realize that, when taken in context, she's actually saying that the FBI was *not* deliberately sabotaging investigations, but that instead the management was incompetent and overly cautious due to high profile mistakes like Waco.

The reports of war games and drills regarding plane attacks on the pentagon are greatly exaggerated and taken out of context. As there are many different claims I won't bother debunking them all right here, but if you post a specific claim I'll get more in depth.

Even if some evidence of foreknowledge passes scrutiny (most doesn't), that evidence doesn't necessarily mean that malicious intent was involved. I would be surprised if we didn't have *any* intelligence prior to 9/11 about what was going to happen, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say. I'm sure every day there are new terrorists threats and plots that come through our lines of intelligence...some intel is good, some not, some attacks will actually happen, some won't. Weeding out the good from the bad and getting the details right is not an exact science. Most likely scenario is that we had heard some rumblings about such an attack, but either passed it off as bad/shady intel and did nothing, or tried to stop it but failed. Incompetence is much more likely than a grand conspiracy, which would require much more competence than our gov't has ever displayed being capable of achieving.

NORAD didn't need to be FUBAR'ed, the response to the perceived threat was by the books...no-one simply grasped the threat of a hijacked plane being used as a guided missile before 9/11...the standard procedure in case of a hijacking has NEVER been to immediately scramble fighters and shoot the plane down. Also, conspiracy theorists grossly exaggerate the speed in which NORAD could detect a threat and scramble fighters pre-9/11.

The controlled demolition theory, even of WTC7, is not only not supported by any solid evidence (and evidence supporting natural collapse far outweighs any of a demolition), but it doesn't make any sense. There is no logical reason why the buildings would have been brought down in a controlled demolition. I have yet to see any motive or reasoning behind WHY this would have been done.

The "pancake theory farce" isn't a farce or a theory, it's a known property of tall buildings. It's called "Progressive Collapse" and it is one of many things taken into consideration when a skyscraper is designed. It has been observed several times before, generally in buildings still under construction. I don't think it had ever been observed on the scale displayed on 9/11 before, but then again a modern skyscraper had never been hit by a 500mph jumbo jet filled with thousands of gallons of jet fuel before, either.

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

from what I see here there are lots of blanket statement's of an incompetence theorist. I'll try to sip through
the misinformation.

but before I so that...

Sibel Edmond's is the most gagged person in US history. The government has repeatedly invoked the State Secrets
Privilege in her case - not for reasons of 'national security' but to hide ongoing criminal activity. Her
accusations also included Certain "semi-legit organizations" operating inside the United States facilitated the
9–11 attacks through money laundering and narcotics trafficking activities on behalf of the terrorists. IF they
have nothing to hide why do they hide everything, if it was incompetence why protect those at all cost?


"The reports of war games and drills regarding plane attacks on the pentagon are greatly exaggerated and taken out
of context. As there are many different claims I won't bother debunking them all right here, but if you post a
specific claim I'll get more in depth."

So your denying the fact that there were multiple war games and drills taken place on 9/11? Like "Vigilant Guardian"

(NORAD exercise on 9/11/2001)
"Sept. 11 was Day II of "Vigilant Guardian," an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts
nationwide"or "Northern Guardian" and "Northern Vigilance" (NORAD exercises on 911/2001)
" Operation Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska
and northern Canada. Part of this exercise is pure simulation"

Or the National Reconnaissance Office that held an exercise of a plane crashing into a building on 9/11.
Not to mention a handful of other drills coincidentally ruining on 9/11. But military agency's are always drilling
right? It just so happen they picked 9/11 to run the most drills in are nations history, leaving are air defense
severely short staffed,while were being warned by multiple agency's of an impending attack using hijacked aircraft.
That's just ignorance again right?


"Even if some evidence of foreknowledge passes scrutiny (most doesn't), that evidence doesn't necessarily mean that
malicious intent was involved. I would be surprised if we didn't have *any* intelligence prior to 9/11 about what
was going to happen, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say. I'm sure every day there are new terrorists threats and
plots that come through our lines of intelligence...some intel is good, some not, some attacks will actually
happen, some won't. Weeding out the good from the bad and getting the details right is not an exact science. Most
likely scenario is that we had heard some rumblings about such an attack, but either passed it off as bad/shady
intel and did nothing, or tried to stop it but failed."

When you have 1 or 2 possible threats reported to by different agency's you can chalk that up as just 'rumblings',
but when there are multiple agency's warning you of an impending attack from bin laden, it goes far beyond
ignorance or a mishap. They knew of this threat and took it very seriously, months before the attack, George bush
went to the G8 summit, the palace was laced with AA guns because the intelligent agency's knew of a possible attack
using hijacked aircraft. So It didn't seem to them to be just 'rumblings'.


"NORAD didn't need to be FUBAR'ed, the response to the perceived threat was by the books...no-one simply grasped
the threat of a hijacked plane being used as a guided missile before 9/11"

Dead Wrong. NORAD ran live drills of just that, planes being used as missiles less then a year before the attacks
before 9/11.

""Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These
exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and
external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures.""

Including planes taking off from within the us.

This wasn't even the first time something like 9/11 happened, on Septenber 7 1970, 4 planes were hijacked in an
Islamic jihad, and were blown up. Not to mention on October 24 2000, the pentagon held detailed drills of an
airliner being crashed into the pentagon. In fact on September 9 they were warned hijacked airplanes are going to
crash into the wtc and it even went into detail as to say it would involve united airlines and American airlines.
Also leaked memos stating bin laden would possibly use hijacked aircraft as a missile. So it's established that
there were warnings of possible hijackings, and EVEN the fact planes were going to be used as missiles. PERIOD

"the standard procedure in case of a hijacking has NEVER been to immediately scramble fighters and shoot the plane
down. Also, conspiracy theorists grossly exaggerate the speed in which NORAD could detect a threat and scramble
fighters pre-9/11."

The standard operating procedure dictate, as soon as the plane goes off course, the ffa will contact the plane to
see what is happening, if there is a problem, immediately the ffa will contact the pentagon, in an max of 10 mins,
will scramble fighter jets to intercept the plane. AA flight 77 lost contact with the ffa lost contact at 8:50 am,
however the fighters weren't EVEN SCRAMBLED in till 9:24 am. OVER 30 mins. Which suggest high level interference. Not
to mention at 9:03 a.m wtc was hit, so everybody knew there is an active attack on the us.
If you try and write it off with the incompetence theory it doesn't hold water. There were No Inquiry's, no
reprimands and no demotions, dismissal's. Nothing.


Incompetence Incompetence. The center point of the GWB administration. With 9/11 and now Iraq. They got bad intelligence and made some mistakes right? Downing street memo proves beyond a doubt they knew full well iraq did not have WMD's. but it seems to be the popular debate amongst the talking heads. Same thing's happening with 9/11. There not darth-vader! There urkle!!

Ok!

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

damn spaces!

[cooncat]

from what I see here there are lots of blanket statement's of an incompetence theorist. I'll try to sip through
the misinformation.
I responded in "blanket statements" because it would be impossible to refute the all the arguments in all those links you posted in any kind of detail. If you'll refrain to posting one argument at a time, I'll be glad to have a more in-depth debate on the topic.


Sibel Edmond's is the most gagged person in US history. The government has repeatedly invoked the State Secrets
Privilege in her case - not for reasons of 'national security' but to hide ongoing criminal activity.

Having the States Secrets Privilege invoked twice, while certainly interesting, hardly qualifies her as "the most gagged person in US history". I will not argue that in her case it was invoked to hide criminal activity. I don't know anyone who things our gov't (or any other, for that matter) is free from corruption. Edmonds claims that she was silenced because; "Reason one: To protect certain diplomatic relations - [not named]; Reason two: To protect certain U.S. foreign business relations." It is not surprising in the least that there would be such elements working within our gov't that place their own interests above those of the American people. Making the jump from this gov't corruption to the gov't intentionally planning or aiding the attacks is where you lose me.

Allegations of corruption aside, most of Edmond's claims are regarding bureaucratic shenanigans and general incompetence within the FBI. From her own website;

"While an FBI translator, Edmonds discovered poorly translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported the shoddy work to her supervisors...in addition, Edmonds claimed that she was told to work slowly to give the appearance that the agency was overworked so it would receive a larger budget, despite a large backlog of documents that needed translating.."

Certainly seems to be evidence in favor of the incompetence theory more than the malicious acts theory, don't you think?

Her accusations also included Certain "semi-legit organizations" operating inside the United States facilitated the
9–11 attacks through money laundering and narcotics trafficking activities on behalf of the terrorists.

I've not heard anything about her claiming that the gov't (or organizations within it) directly facilitated the 9/11 attacks. Link?

IF they have nothing to hide why do they hide everything, if it was incompetence why protect those at all cost?

As i've said, you would have to be blind to believe that the gov't had "nothing to hide" on a matter as divisive and important as 9/11. The only question is whether they are hiding criminal activity or incompetence. Incompetence, and failure of the gov't to prevent the attacks even though they had intelligence, places nearly as much blame on the gov't as outright planning of the attacks would...certainly enough to require covering up. If the gov't had intel about the attacks, but was unable to prevent them, don't you think they'd like to keep that little tidbit on the downlow?

In addition, again from Edmond's own website, she asserts that she was silenced "in an effort to protect itself (the gov't) from embarrassment."...NOT to hide criminal involvement in the attacks! People with a conspiracy mindset always tend to pass over the explanation that is blatantly implied by the evidence, in favor of an explanation that is more romantic or exciting, but not factually supported.

So your denying the fact that there were multiple war games and drills taken place on 9/11?

Did I say that, or did I say that the claims were exaggerated and taken out of context?

Like "Vigilant Guardian"

(NORAD exercise on 9/11/2001)
"Sept. 11 was Day II of "Vigilant Guardian," an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts
nationwide"or "Northern Guardian" and "Northern Vigilance" (NORAD exercises on 911/2001)
" Operation Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska
and northern Canada. Part of this exercise is pure simulation"

Point? War games are constantly being carried out by the military. Are you suggesting that these particular wargames somehow adversely affected the response to 9/11, and if so, are you implying that they were ordered by a secret gov't faction with the intent to facilitate the 9/11 attacks? Please provide evidence that these wargames adversely affected response on 9/11...otherwise, this argument is pointless.

Or the National Reconnaissance Office that held an exercise of a plane crashing into a building on 9/11.

Firstly, it surely looks damning when you parse it down to "an exercise of a plane crashing into a building"...but, it sounds less prophetic when you take into account the actual details of the exercise...the drill was actually based on the idea of a Lear Jet or a FedEx plane having a flame-out on takeoff from nearby Dulles airport and crashing into their headquarters building. What exactly does this have to do with 9/11 again?

And secondly, what exactly are you trying to assert with this piece of evidence? That the NRO had advanced knowledge of the attacks? But, apparently not detailed enough knowledge to know that their headquarters was not being targeted? At best, this supports the incompetence theory over the malicious acts theory. At worst, (and, in reality) it doesn't even have anything to do with 9/11 at all...it's not even a coincidence, it's just a random unrelated event!

Not to mention a handful of other drills coincidentally ruining on 9/11.

Lets not mention them, unless you can prove that any were not a coincidence, or that the fact that the gov't performed a drill can somehow be evidence of malicious activity. Some things really are coincidence...Dream Theater was scheduled to release their new album on 9/11, complete with cover art featuring the NY skyline (twin towers dead center) in flames. Are they in on it too?

But military agency's are always drilling
right? It just so happen they picked 9/11 to run the most drills in are nations history,

That's a strong claim, you should probably provide a reference for that. I'm sure that someone has been keeping a running tally of all the drills that any gov't organization has performed every day, going back to the founding of the country. Shouldn't be too hard to back that up.

leaving are air defense
severely short staffed,while were being warned by multiple agency's of an impending attack using hijacked aircraft.
That's just ignorance again right?

You'd be hard-pressed to prove that a few scattered wargames left the entire USAF (the largest air force in the world) completely impotent. You'd be even harder-pressed to prove that those wargames were a part of a master plan to leave us undefended. Seems like a pretty complicated, roundabout way of going about things, doesn't it? Suddenly, the theory expands to include military officials of high enough ranking to plan and order wargames, and the complete shut-down of our entire air-force for a day, all to put a hole in a skyscraper or two. Funny how conspiracy theories seem to grow and grow until everyone is "in" on it. Heck, I'm probably a gov't disinformation agent assigned to patrol internet forums to perpetuate the cover-up.

When you have 1 or 2 possible threats reported to by different agency's you can chalk that up as just 'rumblings',
but when there are multiple agency's warning you of an impending attack from bin laden, it goes far beyond
ignorance or a mishap. They knew of this threat and took it very seriously, months before the attack, George bush
went to the G8 summit, the palace was laced with AA guns because the intelligent agency's knew of a possible attack
using hijacked aircraft. So It didn't seem to them to be just 'rumblings'.

You act as if intelligence is so clear and unmistakably obvious, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. If we had intel that warned of a possibility of a plane-based attack, it would have been accompanied by intel of possibly hundreds of other threats, some of which would be false, some real, some possible, and some would actually be carried out. The details on all would likely be sketchy and consist of a picture pieced together from numerous sources of varying quality. It's not as if Bin Laden just went up to Bush and said, "So, we're going to fly some planes into the WTC on oh, the 11th or so...that cool with you? Cool, lets grab a burger."

Intelligence gathering is not an exact science, it's an art...and frankly, history shows that we aren't the best artists.

P.S--the fact that anti-aircraft batteries were used to defend the global climate change "G8" summit isn't really proof that they were expecting a hijacker attack, I don't know how you'd think it could be construed that way. The summit is attended by the leaders of eight of the world's most powerful nations, and dozens of other top-ranking officials, and as would be expected, it is defended against all conceivable threats. The defenses included over 15,000 police and military troops, SRAM missile batteries, fighter jets, naval ships, minesweepers, and complete shutdown of rail, road, and air links to the site. That has NOTHING to do with a hijacker attack.

Dead Wrong. NORAD ran live drills of just that, planes being used as missiles less then a year before the attacks
before 9/11.

""Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These
exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and
external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

Including planes taking off from within the us.

Source or link for the "including planes being used as missiles" part, please.

In re: to the quote provided, that quote is taken out of context. In context, you'd realize that the drills in question were only a small part of NORAD's larger and continuously ongoing threat-response exercises. You think they've never drilled on what would happen if a plane was hijacked before? They also drill extensively on a a variety of other scenarios, that doesn't mean that have inside knowledge that any of them are about to occur.

This wasn't even the first time something like 9/11 happened, on Septenber 7 1970, 4 planes were hijacked in an
Islamic jihad, and were blown up.

Not quite. The hijackings in question were not part of an Islamic Jihad, rather part of a group who's goal was to liberate Palestine from israeli control. They sucessfully hijack two, and fly them to Jordan, where they land and keep the passengers as hostages. Neither plane is "blown up". A third plane is hijacked, a jumbo jet, but it is determined to be too large for the their intended landing site, so it is flown to cairo and blown up after all the passengers had been safely removed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/hijacked/timeline/timeline2.html

Not very similar to 9/11 at all, is it? In addition, here is a list of US-to-Cuba hijackings...none of which ended up flown into a building. Considering how long the list is, and that it is only of planes flown to Cuba, it's easy to see why nobody automatically assumed that the 9/11 planes would be used as missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba-US_aircraft_hijackings

Not to mention on October 24 2000, the pentagon held detailed drills of an
airliner being crashed into the pentagon.

Again, it sounds damning when you phrase it so simply, but in reality that drill had bore no resemblance to what happened on 9/11. That scenario was only one of several, others included a mock construction accident and a terrorist bombing of the Pentagon Metro stop. The drill also only involved a select group of Pentagon Officials, not the whole building. To top it off, the scenario also was not about a hijacked plane being crashed into the pentagon, rather about an accidental crash from a plane approaching or taking off from Reagan National Airport, which is less than a mile from the pentagon, and the pentagon sits directly in the flight path of one of the runways.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/Pentagon_Flight_Path.jpg

Of course, if you just say "they conducted drills of a plane crashing into the pentagon" and don't look any further into it that that, then *maybe* it could look like it had something to do with 9/11. Maybe.

In fact on September 9 they were warned hijacked airplanes are going to
crash into the wtc and it even went into detail as to say it would involve united airlines and American airlines.

Source or link? Regardless, even if true this foreknowledge supports the "we had intel predicting the attacks, but failed to prevent them" theory, not the "we planned/allowed the whole thing" theory. If the gov't already knew back in 2000 (back when the drills you mention were taking place) that planes would be flown into the towers, and in fact knew in complete detail what was going to happen BECAUSE THEY WERE BEHIND IT, why would they need to be "warned" (by themselves?!?) just days before? Such a warning only makes sense with the "failed to prevent" theory of incompetence.

Also leaked memos stating bin laden would possibly use hijacked aircraft as a missile. So it's established that
there were warnings of possible hijackings, and EVEN the fact planes were going to be used as missiles. PERIOD

See above. Any such intel is only a part of a huge stream of good and bad information that we receive. From there we must determine the quality of the intel, which threats are real and which are not, and how to respond to those threats. A failure in any step in the intelligence-gathering chain would result in a failure to prevent the attacks. You apparently have a much higher opinion of our gov't than I do, to assume that they could be in such complete control of our nation as to stop any plot in it's tracks immediately upon receiving word that it might happen.

The standard operating procedure dictate, as soon as the plane goes off course, the ffa will contact the plane to
see what is happening, if there is a problem, immediately the ffa will contact the pentagon, in an max of 10 mins,
will scramble fighter jets to intercept the plane. AA flight 77 lost contact with the ffa lost contact at 8:50 am,
however the fighters weren't EVEN SCRAMBLED in till 9:24 am. OVER 30 mins. Which suggest high level interference. Not
to mention at 9:03 a.m wtc was hit, so everybody knew there is an active attack on the us.

The 10mins figure you quote is based on an out-of-context quote and creative math, and is not supported by historical evidence. Pre-9/11, it would often have taken longer than 10mins from the time a plane goes off course for the FAA to even contact NORAD, let alone scramble fighters. Here's one historical example of a scramble taking much longer than 10minutes, and this is POST-9/11, after security in such situations has been ratcheted up to ridiculous levels!!!

"In June 2002 two Air National Guard F-16's failed to intercept a Cessna before it passed the White House. The timeline provided was as follows:

7:59 p.m. Cessna enters "restricted" air space
8:03 p.m. FAA notifies NORAD
8:04 p.m. Cessna enters "prohibited" air space
8:06 p.m. Two F-16s get orders to scramble
8:06 p.m. Cessna passes White House "within a few miles"
8:17 p.m. F-16s take off from Andrews AFB. Intercept occurs "a few minutes later."

Even with streamlined intercept procedures and tighter post 9-11 security, and the planes only 10 miles from Washington, the time from problem occurring to takeoff was still 18 minutes, and the intercept "a few minutes" after that.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/20/plane.intercept"

If you try and write it off with the incompetence theory it doesn't hold water. There were No Inquiry's, no
reprimands and no demotions, dismissal's. Nothing.

For them to issue incompetence-based reprimands re:9/11, they would have to admit that their incompetence directly or indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of american lives...incompetence does not absolve them from responsibility. Think of the lawsuits from those who lost family!

Incompetence Incompetence. The center point of the GWB administration. With 9/11 and now Iraq. They got bad intelligence and made some mistakes right? Downing street memo proves beyond a doubt they knew full well iraq did not have WMD's. but it seems to be the popular debate amongst the talking heads. Same thing's happening with 9/11. There not darth-vader! There urkle!!

Ok!

I believe that the WMD debacle is more a result of "cherry picked" intelligence than flat-out incompetence. It's simply more evidence that intel isn't as clear-cut as you may think...it's like statistics, it can be bent and interpreted and shaped until it fits whatever agenda you are pushing. For Bush, that agenda included invading the middle east, to set up strategic, permanent military bases, which along with his planned nuclear defense shield, would abolish the mutually-assured destruction stalemate and establish US nuclear first-strike primacy against our real threats, a rebuilding Russia and China.

But, that's another argument for another day. :sifone:

[Evil]

:popcorn:

[livingdeath]

:hijacked:

[bigbadroy]

how come they never showed footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? how come as soon as those plane's went off course, there wasn't fighter jets in the air prepared to shoot them down?

[Evil]

how come they never showed footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? how come as soon as those plane's went off course, there wasn't fighter jets in the air prepared to shoot them down?

Pre 9/11 mentality.

[bigbadroy]

Pre 9/11 mentality.

they knew what happened.

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

'I've not heard anything about her claiming that the gov't (or organizations within it) directly facilitated the 9/11 attacks.'

If you have read most of her interviews that it one of her charges. Or at least that's what it's pointing at.
http://www.onlinejournal.org/Commentary/071305Mejia/071305mejia.html
http://www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds.htm

Sibel Also said
"Once this issue gets to be [..] investigated, you will be seeing certain [American] people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally."
Source (http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FBILinguist.htm)
and http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Sibel Edmonds is proof that the “War on Terror” is a Lie

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00177.htm

By W. David Jenkins III
1/23/2006

There are simply too many dots! I’m not kidding around here. I’ve been through a carton of marking pens and a case and a half of extra strength Excedrin following the trail from the Sibel Edmonds case to Plame to Libby to the NSA to the Whistleblowers Coalition to Turkey to Hastert to Abramoff to the White House and back again. This is not an exercise equivalent to playing “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” but a monstrous series of lines and dots that would produce a flow chart bigger than Rush Limbaugh’s mouth.

Speaking of Limbaugh, his recent slam of Ms. Edmonds and fellow whistleblower, Russell Tice, prompted me to congratulate Sibel the last time we talked. “They must be worried if they’re calling out the right wing radio mouths,” I told her. However, Rove and Co. may want folks like Rush to shut up about Edmonds because the more people hear about her case, the more trouble it invites for this most corrupt administration. Besides, they’ve spent the last few years imposing gag orders on Edmonds out of fear of what she knows.

And now, true to their sleazy ways of doing “business as usual” as Edmonds calls it, the Bush Cabal is going to add insult to Edmonds ’ injury. They’re going to poke her in the eye with “Scooter” Libby’s get of jail free card. Allow me to introduce, as well as concentrate on, Judge Reggie Walton.

Walton is the judge who will not only be presiding over the Libby case, but he has also been “randomly assigned” to Edmonds’ Federal Tort Claim after having upheld her ridiculous gag order imposed by former attorney general, John Ashcroft. I call the gag order ridiculous because technically Edmonds ’ driver’s license, birth certificate and any potential job applications she might file can be considered a “state secret” under the provisions set. As I’ve said many times before, somebody is very worried about what Edmonds wants to talk about.

Very little is known about Walton and it would seem that there are those, including Walton, who would just assume keep it that way. But what little is known should be enough to set off all kinds of bells and whistles, beginning with his long history with the Bush gang.

Eight years after becoming a judge on the D.C. circuit, Walton was introduced to Bush the First’s “drug czar”, Bill (the Gambler) Bennett, who asked him to be his number two guy eight weeks later. Walton accepted the offer and began racking up frequent flyer miles to spread the word on Bush’s war on drugs. Two years after that, he became Bush’s senior White House advisor on crime and was then reappointed to the D.C. circuit. After that, things get fuzzy again.

In fact, even the DOJ web site has very little listed about this guy. A press release here, a press release there, but that’s about it. I found he did overrule a stay on bear hunting in New Jersey and he also weighed in as far as not ordering the ATFE to recognize sport rocket motors as propellant actuated devices.

One would think that someone with such important connections would have an Internet history or any recorded history a tad more interesting than this. I mean, think about it; this is the guy you want to send the Libby case and Edmonds case to? But the more you look at Walton, the more “interesting” things get. In fact, I had to “drudge” through the wacky right wing sites to find the following “interesting” tid bit.

Some may remember the hoopla over alleged connections between the Oklahoma City bombings and Iraq . Now, without going into the nuts and bolts of this particular story, an Oklahoma City lawyer named Mike Johnston, aided by Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. They sought to obtain FBI files which they felt had been purposely withheld from defense attorneys in the McVeigh trial.

The suit was dismissed in July of 2002 on a technicality. The presiding judge in the decision was none other than Reggie Walton.

Strangely enough, Judicial Watch recently requested and was granted through the FOIA the financial disclosures of federal judges including Walton from the year 2003. Now, if you go to read Walton’s disclosure, you will notice that somebody went wild with one of those black magic markers that have become so popular in DeeCeeVille the last five years or so. In other words, Walton’s 2003 financial disclosure record is completely redacted. And I mean everything.

Subsequently, Professor William Weaver, Senior Legal Advisor for the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) recently filed a request on Walton's redacted background. Sibel Edmonds is the founder and president of the NSWBC.

So to quickly sum up, we have a judge with little background available, with long ties to the Bush’s, who someone doesn’t want the public to know his financial dealings, who has denied requests for domestic intelligence records (at least once), who has now been mysteriously “randomly assigned” to not only hear Edmonds’ FTC case, but is also assigned to a case regarding a senior White House official with whom this judge and the defendant worked with the White House at the same time, albeit in different capacities. Have we flunked the infamous Dan Burton “smell test” yet?

Now, let’s do some of those notorious dots, shall we? A small sampling of coincidences (a term which the past actions of this administration prevent me from believing applies to these criminals) suggests how tangled things are lately.

Walton gets “randomly” assigned to Edmonds ’ original case regarding the gag order after things get bogged down under the original judge appointed to the case in 2002. Edmonds ’ attorneys then file a motion asking the case to be assigned to Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, who is also the judge for Edmonds ’ FOIA case filed in May 2002. Edmonds ’ attorneys argue that the cases were related under the D.C. circuit rules, and so they should both be handled by Judge Huvelle. The court grants Edmonds ’ attorneys request and yet, two weeks after Huvelle is assigned, Walton is reappointed to her case without any explanation. An interesting side note; Huvelle is also the judge who presided over Jack Abramoff’s guilty plea.

From February 2003 to April 2004, Walton repeatedly scheduled and postponed hearings in the Edmonds case without citing any reason. There was no communication from Walton to Edmonds’ attorneys from October ’03 to April ’04 until a lawsuit on behalf of one thousand 9/11 families was filed which requested a deposition from Sibel Edmonds. Only then, does Walton move (at the government’s request) to not only quash Edmonds ’ subpoena on behalf of the 9/11 families, but also upholds the gag order imposed on her using the State Secrets Privilege. So now let’s fast forward to Libby’s case.

Edmonds has confirmed that Walton’s involvement with her original case along with her FTC case has allowed him to be privy to information regarding many of the same players that also appear in the Plame case, most notably, certain Turkish-American organizations. These would be the same semi-legit organizations that were FBI targets of investigation which Edmonds had discovered were being ignored by fellow intelligence translators from within the FBI!

These would also be the same targets that are alleged to have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. But as hard as it can be, let’s not lose focus here.

As Edmonds has stated, the cast of players she stumbled upon during her time at the FBI and some of the very same people that Valerie Plame was investigating involved the actions of top officials in the government and a lot of illegal activities that include multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes. In an August 5th interview, Edmonds said, “You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people.”

Sibel Edmonds testified to all of this and more in a closed session with the Philip Zelikow led 9/11 Commission. Obviously, her testimony was considered too controversial as the Commission completely omitted the information from their final report. Now, the Bush administration has again called on the shadowy Judge Walton to insure that the truth regarding Edmonds , Plame, Libby , Iraq , 9/11 and all things Bush never sees the light of day.

Judge Walton demands much more attention than he’s been given. The mainstream media is obviously oblivious to the effect he will have on the outcome of both the Edmonds case and Libby’s trial. As we have seen, there is far too much at stake to allow any sense of true justice to prevail.

After all these years, there are still far too few Americans who realize that the war on terror is being “selectively waged” as Edmonds so desperately wants the right to prove to everyone. Now we are confronted by an administration that states that spying on Americans is “essential to our safety” and that it allows them to do “everything possible to wage war on those who wish us harm.” Sibel Edmonds is proof that they are lying their faces off.

And Judge Walton is the administration’s insurance policy which will allow them to maintain “business as usual.”

Interesting to say the least.





Im busy as hell, i'll try ro get around responding to the rest.

[mastema13]

Wow, speechless.

[kermitthefrayer]

www.jonesreport.com

[Soul Position]

tumbleweed