GazeboflossUK

I know. I guess I should be pretty happy. I just hope we end up being the sole remaining team in the UEFA Cup = Winning it.

The vids seem a little messed up a couple of times....but only a little. Watching a full live lecture from him is really something actually. He's a very clever and really nice guy.

Hey, you know what....that explains alot!! Text messages were taking hours to get to people. Although this has happend before but not on so many messages.

Transportation Secretary on 9/11 Norman Mineta tells the truth. By the way, this was cut on TV and omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV-Srod3XUs

This took forever 9-11 Investigation: Key 9-11 Facts And Assumptions Challenged By Prof. David Ray Griffin Video - 9-11: Myth Or Reality? 9-11 Investigation: key facts and assumptions about the 9-11 tragedy are systematically dismantled and proven false by retired theologician and active book writer Prof. David Ray Griffin. His documentary video - 9-11: Myth Or Reality? has some valuable insight everyone with an open mind should confront itself with. David Ray Griffin, is a retired Philosophy and Theology professor who has spent considerable time studying, analyzing and reviewing the facts and information that did not make to the front page of most world newspapers in the aftermatch of the 9-11 tragedy. Recently, Prof. Griffin recorded two of his public presentations that he gave in San Francisco and Oakland in March and April of this year. Out of these recordings came the release of a full-length video documentary entitled: 9/11 - The Myth and The Reality, which can be freely viewed online in its entirety (1hr 38'). In the full-featured video, Prof. Griffin details nine of the most commonly held myths and misconceptions about the events surrounding 9/11, and with microscopic precision addresses and dismantles each of the fallacies on which each one of those myths was painstakingly built. In this unique video report I have decided to assemble here, I have extracted from the full-length video documentary, the nine short sections in which Prof. Griffin methodically dismantles by way of clear and fact-supported logic, the key foundations that keep together the mainstream story most of us still believe today. This is man of gentle manners and having a relaxed, detached attitude. Prof. Griffin is not the typical conspiracy theorist. He is not a screamer, nor a counter-revolutionary communist. At the most superficial level Prof. Griffin really looks like a grand-fatherly figure, that inspires trust and that serves thoughtful insight gained on the battleground. As a scholar of the religious and the supernatural, he has trained himself not to get too emotional or patriotic and not to claim the direct guilt of anyone in first person. He rather unleashes a huge and unequivocable stream of logic, facts and public reports that once pulled together in the proper order, provide a visible evidence for information that was under everyone's eyes throughout this time. In this showcase, my newsroom has worked to bring to you nine short videos extracted from Dr. Griffin full-length video documentary as well as the full and complete English text transcription of them. Myth # 1: "Our political and military leaders simply would not do such a thing" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OtQoFiGHHw&eurl= This idea is widely believed, but is undermined by much evidence. The United States like many other countries has often used deceit to begin wars. For example, the American-Mexican war, with its false claim that “Mexico had shed American blood on American soil.” The Spanish-American war with its “Remember the main incident”. The war in the Philippines, with its false claim that the Philippinos fired the first shot. And the Vietnam war, with its “Golf of Tunkan” hoax. U.S government has also sometimes organized false flagged terrorist attacks, killing innocent civilians, then blaming the attacks on an enemy country or group often by planning evidence. As Daniel Ganser has shown in his recent book, "NATO's Secret Armies", NATO, guided by the CIA and the Pentagon arranged many such attacks in Western European countries during the Cold War, in which hundreds of people were killed by bombs or hooded men with shotguns. These attacks were successfully blamed on communists and other “leftists” to discredit them in the eyes of the voting public. Finally, if it be thought that U.S military would not orchestrate such attacks against American citizens, one would only need to read the plans named as “Operation Northwoods” which the Joint Chief of Staff worked out in 1962 shortly after Fidel Castro had overthrown the pro-American dictator Batista. This plan contained various pretexts which would provide justification for U.S military intervention in Cuba. Some of them would have involved killing Americans, for example “I remember the main incident”, “we could blow up a U.S ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.” At this point, some people, having seen evidence that U.S leaders would be morally capable of orchestrating 9/11, might avoid looking at the evidence by appeal to Myth # 2. Myth # 2: "Our Political and Military leaders would have had no motive for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9AxQPBbd-g&eurl= This myth was reinforced by the 9/11 Commission while explaining that Al Qaeda had ample motives for carrying out the attacks. This report mentions no motives that U.S leaders might have had, but the alleged motives of Al Qaeda that had hated Americans and their freedoms is dwarfed by the motive held my many members of the Bush-Cheney administration, the dream of establishing a global "pax americana", the first all inclusive empire in history. This dream has been articulated by many neo-conservatives or neo-cons during the 1990s after the disintegration of the Soviet Union made this possible. It was first officially articulated in the defence planning guide of 1992 drafted by Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney. A document that has been called “A blueprint for permanent American global hegemony”, and Cheney’s “plan to rule the world”. Achieving this goal would require four things: 1. One of these was getting control of the world’s oil especially in Central Asia and the Middle East. And the Bush administration came to power with the plans already made to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. 2. The second requirement was a technological transformation of the military in which fighting from space would become essential. 3. A third requirement was an enormous increase in the military spending to pay for these new wars and the weaponization of space. 4. The fourth one was the remodeling of the doctrine of pre-emptive attack so that American would be able to attack other countries even if they presented no eminent threat. These four elements would require a fifth, an event that would make the American people ready to accept these imperialistic policies. As Bruno Brzezinski explained in his 1997 book called "The Grand Chess Board": “The American people with their Democratic instincts are reluctant to authorize the money and human sacrifice as is necessary for ‘imperial mobilization,’ and this refusal limits America’s capacity for military intimidation.” But this impediment could be overcome if there were “a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat”. Just as the American people were willing to enter WWII only after “the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor”. The same idea was suggested in a 2000 document entitled "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" (PDF) which was put out by a neo-con think tank called “Project for the New American Century,” many members of which including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz became central members of the Bush Administration. This document referring to the goal of transforming the military said that this “process of transformation… is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor”. When the attacks of 9/11 occurred, they were treated like a new Pearl Harbor, so the members of the administration spoke of them as new opportunities. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared that 9/11 create “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world”. It created in particular the opportunity to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, to increase the military budget enormously, to go forward with military transformation, and to turn the new idea of pre-emptive warfare into an official doctrine. This doctrinal change was announced in a 2002 version of the national security strategy which sought that America will act against emerging threat before they are fully formed. So not only did the Bush administration reap huge benefits from 9/11, these were benefits that it had desired in advance. The idea that it would have had no motives for orchestrating 9/11 is a Myth. But there is one more Myth that keeps many people from looking at the evidence: Myth # 3. Myth # 3: "Such a big operation involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret because someone involved in it would have talked by now" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfxqnb6UlsA&eurl= This claim is based on a more general myth which is that it is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long because someone always talks. But how could one no this? If some big operation has remained secret until now, we by definition don’t know about them. Moreover, we do know about some big operations that were kept secret as long as necessary; such as the “Manhattan Project” in order to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957 which the United States provoked, participated in, and then kept secret until 1995. Many more examples could be given; we can understand more why those with the inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit, could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats such as: “Joe, if you go forward with your plan to talk to the press, I don’t know who is going to protect your wife and kids”. From some nutcase angered by your statement. Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press have, to say the least shown any signs of wanting people to come forward; for all these reasons, it is not surprising that no one has. Myth # 4: “The 9/11 Commission, which has endorsed the official account, was an independent, impartial commission and hence can be believed” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx0n2TF1IpY&eurl= One needs only to look at the reviews of the 9/11 Commission Report on Amazon.com to see that this assumption is widely held. Perhaps this is because in the preface, the Commission’s chairman and vice chairman tell us that the 9/11 Commission sought to be “independent, impartial, thorough, unpartisan,” but these trends do not describe the reality. The Commission’s lack of impartiality can be explained partly by the fact that the Chairman Thomas Kean and most of the other commissioners and at least half of the members of the staff had severe conflicts of interest. The most serious problem however, is that the executivee director, Philip Zelikow who is essentially a member of the Bush-Cheney administration he had worked with Condoleeza Rice on the Commission Security Counsel on the administration of the first president Bush. Then when the Republicans were out of office, he and Condoleeza Rice wrote a book together then when she was named National Security Advisor for the second president Bush, she brought him on the help with the transition. Finally then, he was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. So, he was the White House’s man inside the 9/11 Commission, and yet as executive director, he guided the staff which he had virtually all worked. Then Zelikow was in position therefore to decide which topics would be investigated and which ones not. One staff member reported at the time, “Zelikow was calling the shots, he was skewing the investigation and running it his own way.” Accordingly the Commission was not independent from the Executive branch in so far as the Commission was supposed to be investigating the failure of the Bush administration to prevent the attacks, the Commission was no more independent and impartial than if Dick Cheney had been running it; the only difference was that no one was shot. Zelikow’s ideological and personal closeness to the Bush administration is further shown by one more fact that until now has not been widely known even within the 9/11 truth movement. I mentioned earlier, the Bush administration’s national security strategy statement of 2002 in which the new doctrine of “pre-emptive warfare” was articulated, the primary author of this document, James Mann reports in "The Rise Of The Vulcans", was non other than Philip Zelikow. According to Mann, after Rice saw first draft which had been written by Richard Haass in the State Department, she wanted “something bolder” and brought Philip Zelikow to completely rewrite the document. The result was a document that used 9/11 to justify Zelikow’s foreign policy. We can understand therefore, why the 9/11 Commission under Zelikow’s leadership would have ignored all the evidence that would point to the truth, that 9/11 was a false-flag operation intended to authorize the doctrines and funds needed for a new level of imperial mobilization. The suggestion that 9/11 was a false-flag operation brings us to Myth # 5. Myth # 5: “The Bush administration provided proof that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=968U4n8Rnnw&eurl= One of the main pieces of the alleged proof involved the claim that the baggage of Muhammad Atta, called the ring leader was discovered at the Boston airport from which Flight 11 departed. This baggage besides containing Atta’s passport and driving license also involved various types of incriminating evidence such as flight simulator manuals, video tapes of Boeing airlines and a letter to other hijackers about preparing for the mission. But the bags also contained Atta’s will, why would Atta have intended to take his will on the plane he had intended to take into the [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center]World Trade Cente[/url]r. There are also many other problems with this story we seem to have planted evidence. Another element of the official story about the plane hijackers is that they were very devout Muslims; the 9/11 Commission Report had said that Atta had become very religious even fanatically so. The public was thereby led to believe that this man would have no problem with the suicide mission because they were ready to meet their maker. But investigator reporter, Daniel Hopsicker described that Atta had cocaine, gambling, porn, and lap dances. So many of the other alleged hijackers had the same taste, reported The Wall Street Journal. The 9/11 Commission pretends however, that non of this information was available while admitting that Atta had met other members of Al Qaeda in Las Vegas shortly before 9/11; it says that it’s on “no credible evidence explaining why on this occasion and others, the operatives flew to or met in Las Vegas”. Another problem in the official account is that although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the flights, no proof of this claim has been provided. The story is that of course they did not force their way into the planes, but they bought tickets so their names should have been on the flight manifests, but the flight manifests that had been released contained neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any Arab names whatsoever. We’ve also been given no proofs that the remains of any of these men were found in the wreckage. One final little problem is that several of these nineteen men according to stories published by the BBC and the British newspapers are still alive. For example, the 9/11 Commission named Waleed al-Shehri as one of the hijackers and reproduced the FBI’s photograph of him. It even suggested that Waleed al-Shehri stabbed one of the flight attendants shortly before Flight 11 crashed into the north tower; but as BBC news had reported 11 days after 9/11, Waleed al-Shehri having seen his photograph in newspapers and TV programs, notified authorities and journalists in Morocco where he works as a pilot that he is still alive. But if there are various problems with the government’s story about the hijackers, surely it has proved its case about Osama bin Laden in so far as this belief is held, it is also a Myth. As the Secretary of State, Colin Powell promised shortly after 9/11 to provide a white paper giving this proof; but this paper was never produced. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair did produce such a paper, but it begins with the admission that “it does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law”. So evidence good enough to go to war, but not good enough to go to court; and although the Taliban had said that it would hand Bin Laden over if the United States provided evidence of his involvement in 9/11, Bush refused. This failure to provide proof was later proven to be unnecessary because Bin Laden in a video allegedly found in Afghanistan, admitted responsibility for the attacks; this confession is now widely sited as proof, but the man in this video has darker skin, fuller cheeks, and a broader nose than the Osama bin Laden of all other videos. We again seem to have planted evidence. There are moreover other problems in the official account of Osama bin Laden; for one thing in June of 2001, when he was already America’s most wanted criminal, he reportedly spent two weeks in the American hospital in Dubai, was treated by an American doctor, and visited by the local CIA agent. Also after 9/11, when America was reportedly trying to get Osama “dead or alive” U.S military evidently allowed him to escape on at least two occasions, the last one being the battle of Tora Bora, which the London Telegraph labelled “A Grand Charade.” Shortly thereafter Bush said, “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I really don’t care. It’s not our priority”. Sometimes the truth slips out. In any case the idea that the Bush administration has provided proof for its claims about Osama bin Laden, and the Al Qaeda hijackers is a Myth. Myth # 6: “The 9/11 attacks came as a surprise to the Bush administration” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ49JVQWOQ4&eurl= Nothing is more essential to the official story than this idea. About ten months after 9/11, FBI director, Robert Mueller had said, “to this day we have found no one in the United States except the actual hijackers who knew of the plot”. There is much evidence however, that counts against this claim. One type of evidence involves an extraordinary high volume of put option bought just three days prior to 9/11; to buy put options for a particular company, is to have bit that its stock price would go down. These extraordinary purchases included two and only two airlines, United and American, the two airlines used in the attacks; they also included Morgan Stanley Dean Witter which occupied twenty two stories of the World Trade Center. The price of these shares did of course plummet after 9/11 resulting in enormous profits for the purchasers; these unusual purchases as the San Francisco Chronicle said, “raise suspicions that the investors… had advance knowledge of the strikes”. It would appear in other words that those who made the purchases knew that the United and American airliners were going to be used in attacks on the World Trade Center. The 9/11 Commission tried to show these suspicions to be unfounded; it claimed for example, that the purchases for United airlines do not show that anyone other than Al Qaeda had foreknowledge because 95% of these auctions were purchased by “a single U.S based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda”. But the 9/11 Commission thereby simply begged the question in regards to this issue, which is whether some organization other than Al Qaeda was involved in the planning. Also the 9/11 Commission ignored the other crucial point which is that the U.S intelligence agency closely monitored the stock market looking for any anomalies that might provide clues to untoward events. Therefore, regardless of who orchestrated the attacks, the U.S government would have had intelligence suggesting that the United and American airliners would have been used for the attacks on the World Trade Center in the near future. Further evidence shown by the behaviour of president Bush and his secret service agents at the photo-op at the school in Florida that morning. According to the official story, when Bush was first told that the plane had struck one of the twin towers, he dismissed the incident as a horrible accident which meant that they could go ahead with the photo-op; news of the second strike however, would have indicated, assuming that the news were unexpected that terrorists were using planes to attack high value targets and what could have been a higher value target than the president of the United States. His vocation at the school had been highly publicized, therefore the secret service agents should have feared that the hijacked airliners might have been bearing the school in that very minute and ready to crash into it. It is standard procedure for the secret service to rest the president to a safe location when ever there is any sign of danger; and yet these agents allowed the president to remain another half hour at the school. Even permitting him to deliver and address on TV, thereby announcing to the world that he was still at the school. Would not this behaviour be explainable only if the head of the secret service detail knew that the plane attacks did not include the attack on the school and the president. The 9/11 Commission of course did not ask this question; it was content to report that the secret service told us that they did not think it imperative for the president to run out the door. Maintaining decorum in other words was more important than protecting the president’s life. Can anyone seriously believe that the highly trained secret service would act this way in a situation of genuine danger. A third example, a pentagon spokesperson in claiming why the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was attacked, claiming that the pentagon was simply not aware that the aircraft was coming our way. The 9/11 Commission claimed that there was no warning about an unidentified aircraft heading towards Washington until 9:36 and hence only one or two minutes before the Pentagon was struck. But this claim is contradicted by the Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony about an episode that occurred in the Presidential Emergency Centre under the White House. In open testimony to the 9/11 Commission itself Mineta said: “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President that the plane is fifty miles out, the plane is thirty miles out, and when it got down to the plane is ten miles out, the young man also said to the Vice President ‘do the orders still stand?’ and the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?'" Mineta said that this conversation occurred at 9:25 or 9:26, hence many minutes before the Pentagon was struck. This example gives us one of the clearest examples that Zelikow led the 9/11 Commission and that the 9/11 Commission cannot be trusted. Having claimed that there was no knowledge that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until the last minute or so, it simply omitted Mineta’s testimony to the contrary. Then to rid out the possibility that the real episode Mineta had reported could have occurred, it claimed that Cheney did not even arrive down to the Presidential Emergency Centre until almost 10:00 o’clock; hence about 20 minutes after the Pentagon was struck. But this claim, besides contradicting Mineta’s eyewitness testimony that Cheney was already there when Mineta arrived at 9: 20 also contradicts all other reports as to Cheney had already arrived there including a report by Cheney himself. In summary, having compared the account of the official story about the put options, the secret service and Mineta’s eyewitness testimony, we can reject as a Myth that the attacks were unexpected. However, even if the attacks had been unexpected, should they not have been prevented? This brings us to Myth # 7. Myth # 7: “U.S officials have explained why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hIEC_QvQAw&eurl= Actually there is a sense in which this claim is true, U.S officials have explained why the U.S military did not prevent the attacks; the problem however, is that they have given us three explanations; they are all mutually contradictory, and non of them is a satisfactory explanation. I will explain… According to standard operating procedures, if an FAA flight controller agent notices anything that suggests a possible hijacking, the controller has to contact a superior. If the problem cannot be fixed quickly within about a minute, the superior has to ask NORAD (The North American Aerospace Defense Command), have to send up or scramble jet fighters to figure out what’s going on. Norad them issues a scramble order to the nearest air force base with fighters on alert; the jet fighters at Norad’s disposal could respond very quickly. According to the U.S air force website, F15s can go from scramble order to 2000 feet in only two and a half minutes; after which they can fly over 1800 miles an hour. Therefore, according to General Ralph Eberhart, the head of NORAD, after the FAA senses that something is wrong “it takes about a minute” for it to contact NORAD after which according to a spokesperson, NORAD can scramble fighter jets “within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States.” An air force travel control document put out in 1998, warning pilots that “any airplane persisting in unusual behaviour will likely find two [jetfighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes.” If these procedures had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, American airlines flight 11 and United airline flight 175, would have been intercepted before they could reach Manhattan; and the American flight 77 would have been intercepted long before it could reach the Pentagon. Such interceptions are routine being carried out about a hundred times a year; a month after 9/11 the [urlhttp://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/index.html]Calgary Herald[/url] reported that “in the year 2000, NORAD had scrambled fighters 129 times.” Do these scrambles often result in interceptions? Just a few days after 9/11, Major Mike Snyder, the NORAD spokesperson told the Boston Globe that “[Norad] fighters routinely intercept aircraft.” Why did not such interceptions occur on 9/11? During the first few days, the public was told that during 9/11 no fighter jets were set up until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9: 38. However, it was also reported that signs of Flight 11 hijacking had been observed at 8:15; that would mean that although interceptions usually occur within ten or so minutes after signs of trouble are observed, in this case, 80 or so minutes had passed before fighters were even airborne. This story suggest that a stand down order had been given; within a few days however, a second story was put out according to which NORAD had sent fighters up but because notification from FAA had been very tardy, the fighters arrived too late. On September, 18th NORAD made this second story official embodying it in a timeline which indicated when NORAD had been notified by the FAA about each airplane and who and when it had scrambled fighters in response. Critics quickly showed however, that even if the FAA notifications had come as late as NORAD’s timeline indicated, NORAD’s jets would have had time to make interceptions. The second story did not therefore, remove the suspicion that a stand down order had been given; hoping to overcome this problem, the 9/11 Commission report provided a third account according to which contrary to NORAD’s timeline of September 18, the FAA did not notify NORAD about Flight 175 after it had struck the South Tower or about Flight 77 until after it had stuck the Pentagon. But there are three big problems with this third story. One problem is the very fact that it is the third story; normally when a suspect in a criminal investigation keeps changing his story, we get suspicious. Let’s say that the police asked Charlie Jones where he was on the night of a particular crime, he says he was at the movie theatre, but they say no the movie theatres have been closed all week. Oh Charlie says "That’s right! I was with my girlfriend."; the police say, "No, we checked with her and she was home with her husband!" At that point Charlie says "Oh now I remember, I was home reading the Bible." You’re probably not going to believe Charlie, and yet that’s what we have here. The military told one story after 9/11, another story two weeks later and a third through the 9/11 Commission report in 2004. Second problem with this third story is that it contradicts several features of the second story which had served as the official story for almost three years. For example, NORAD’s timeline had indicated that the FAA had notified it about Flight 175, 20 minutes before the South Tower was struck, and notified it about Flight 77 at least 14 minutes before the Pentagon was struck. The 9/11 Commission maintains that both of these statements were “incorrect” that really there had been no notification and that NORAD did not know about these flights until after they had hit the targets; this was why the military failed to intercept them. But if NORAD’s timeline was false, as the Commission now claims, NORAD must have been lying or confused. But it’s hard to believe that it could have been confused one week after 9/11; so it must have been lying. But if NORAD was lying then, why should we believe them now? Further skepticism about this story arises from the fact that it is contradicted by considerable evidence. For example the Commission’s claim that the military did not know about Flight 175 until it reached its goal, is contradicted by Captain Michael Jeleneck who on 9/11 was overseeing NORAD’s headquarters in Colorado. According to a story on Toronto Star, Jeleneck was on the phone with NORAD as he watched Flight 175 crash into the South Tower; he then asked NORAD, “Was that the hijacked aircraft you were dealing with?” To which NORAD said, “Yes.” The 9/11 Commission’s claims about Flights 175 and 77 are also contracted by a memo sent to the Commission by Laura Brown of the FAA; her memo stated that the FAA had set up a teleconference at about 8:50 that morning at which time it had started to share information about all flights with the military. She specifically mentioned Flight 77; her memo which is available on the web was discussed by the 9/11Commission and read into its record on May 22, 2003. But Zelikow’s 9/11 Commission report fails to mention this memo. Because of these and still more problems which I have discussed in a lecture called “9/11 Flights of Fancy Truth and Politics,” this third story does not remove the grounds for suspicion that a stand down order had been given. There is moreover ear witness testimony for this suspicion; an upper man official in LAX airport who needs to remain anonymous, told me that he overheard members of LAX security including officers of FBI and the LAPD interacting on their walky-talky shortly after the attacks. In some cases he could hear both sides of the conversation; at first the LAX officials were furious because they were told that the airplanes that had attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had not be intercepted because the FAA had not notified NORAD about the hijackings. But later he reports that they were even more furious because they were told that NORAD had been notified, but it did not respond because it had been ordered to stand down. When the LAX security official asked who had issued that order, they were told that it had came from the highest level of the White House; that of course would mean Cheney. Accordingly, the idea that the attacks could not have been prevented is a Myth. Myth # 8: “Official reports have explained why the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUZaRCGEAjI&eurl= This claim suffers from the same problem as the previous one which has three explanations each of which contradicts the others and non of which is anywhere near adequate. The first explanation: while widely disseminated through television specials that the buildings collapsed because the columns were melted by the jet fuel fire; but this explanation contains many problems, the most obvious of which is that steel does not begin to melt until about 2800 degrees Fahrenheit while open fire is consisted of hydrocarbons such as kerosene, which is what jet fuel is, cannot even under the most ideal circumstances rise above 1700 degrees. A second explanation endorsed by the 9/11 Commission report is the “pancake” theory according to which the fires while not melting the steel, heated them up sufficiently enough to cause the floors weaken by the air strikes to break loose from the steel columns both those in the core and those around the outside. All the floors above the strike zone hence fell down on the floors bellow the strike zone causing it to break free and therefore started a chain reaction so that the floors pancaked all the way down. But this explanation also suffered from many problems; the most obvious of which was that it could not explain why the buildings collapsed into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each of the Twin Towers was consisted of massive steel columns; if the floors had broken loose from them, these columns would still have been sticking up in the air a thousand feet. The 9/11 Commission Report tried to cover up this problem by claiming that the core of each tower consisted of “a hollow steel shaft.” But those massive steel columns could not be wished away. The definitive explanation was supposed to be a third one issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology usually called [NIST]. The NIST report claimed that when the floors collapsed, they rather than breaking free from the columns pulled on them causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core which in this claim reached over 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, and this combination of factors resulted in global collapse. But as physicists John Hoffman and Steven Joneshave shown this account is riddled with problems. One is that NIST’s claim about the tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by the evidence or logic. The second problem is that even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provided no explanation as to why it would have resulted in global that is total collapse. The NIST report asserts that column failure occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns, but this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation why the core columns would have broken or even buckled so as to produce global collapse, and this is only to begin to innumerate the problems in NIST theory all of which follow from the fact that it like the previous two theories is essentially a fire theory according to which the buildings were brought down primarily by fire. In the case of the Twin Towers of course the impact of the airplanes is said to have played a role, but most experts who support the official theory attribute the collapses primarily to the fire. NIST for example says that the main contribution of the airplanes aside from providing jet fuel, was to dislodge a lot of the fire proofing from the steel thereby making it vulnerable to the fires. (By the way when you go home tonight and light your fire in the fireplace be sure to fireproof your steel or the great may collapse!). These fire theories face several formidable problems. First the fires in these three buildings were not very hot, very big or very long lasting compared to the flames in some steel framed high risers that did not collapse. The 1991 fire in Philadelphia burned 18 hours, and a 2004 fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours without causing even a partial collapse. In contrast, the fires in the North and South Towers burned only for 102 and 56 minutes respectively before they collapsed and neither fire unlike the Philadelphia and the Caracas fires were hot enough to break windows. Second, total collapses in steel framed high rise buildings have never either before or after 9/11 been brought down by fire alone or fire plus externally caused structural damage. The collapse of building 7 has been recognized as specially difficult to explain; it was not hit by a plane so the explanation has to rely solely on fire and yet because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started, this building only had fires on two or three floors according to several witnesses and all photographic evidence. FEMA admitted that the best theory it could come up with in this collapse had “only a low probability of occurrence.” The 9/11 Commission report implicitly admitted that it could not explain the collapse of this building by not even mentioning it. In this report which could not claim that even fire proofing had gotten knocked off the steel of this building, has yet to offer an explanation as to why it collapsed; and NIST like the 9/11 Commission evidently does not want you asking why building 7 collapsed even though it was not hit by a plane. On its website it says that one of its objectives is to determine “why and how World Trade Center building 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft.” Thereby implying that building 7, like the Twin Towers was also hit by a plane. In any case, the third problem with the official account of the collapses of these three buildings is that all prior and subsequent collapses, total collapses of steel framed high risers have been caused by explosives and the procedure known as “controlled demolition.” This problem is made even more severe by the fact that the collapses of these three buildings manifested many features of the most difficult type of demolition, known as “implosion.” I will mention seven of such features: 1. First the collapses began suddenly: Steel, if weakened by fire would gradually begin to sag, but as one can see from videos available on the web, all three buildings are completely motionless up to the moment they begin to collapse. 2. Second, if these huge buildings had began to topple over, they would have caused an enormous amount of death and destruction over Manhattan, but they came straight down. The straight down collapse is the whole point of Controlled Implosion which only a few companies in the world are qualified enough to pull off. 3. Third, these buildings collapsed at virtually free-fall speed which means that the lower floors which were all steel and concrete were offering virtually no resistance. 4. Fourth, as mentioned earlier, these collapses were total collapses resulting in piles of rubble only a few storeys high; this means that the enormous steel columns at the core of each building had to be broken into rather short segments which is what explosives do. 5. Fifth, great quantities of molten steel were produced which means that the steel had been heated up to several thousand degrees, and witnesses during the cleanup reported that sometimes a piece of steel was lifted out of the rubble, there was dripping molten metal. 6. Sixth, according to many fire-fighters, medical workers, journalists, and World Trade Centre employees, many explosions went off both before and during the collapses. For example, fire Captain Denis Tardiel speaking of the South Tower said, “I hear an explosion and look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom.” Fire-fighter Richard Minisinsky said when they were blowing up these buildings, “it seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” Thanks to the release in August of 2005 of the oral histories recorded by the Fire Department of New York shortly after 9/11. Dozens of testimonies of this type are now available; I’ve published an essay on them which is included in the forthcoming book on 9/11 and Christian faith along with a lecture on the destruction of the World Trade Center which I am now summarizing. 7. A seventh feature of the Controlled Implosion is the production of large quantities of dust. In the case of the Twin Towers, virtually everything the steel, the concrete, the computers, the desks, was pulverized into very tiny dust particles. The official story cannot explain one let alone all seven of these features at least as Hoffman and Jones point out without violating several basic laws of physics; but the Controlled Demolition theory easily explains all of these features. These findings are inconsistent with the idea that Al Qaeda terrorists were responsible. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to those buildings for all the hours it would have taken to plant the explosives. Also, Al Qaeda terrorists would probably not have the courtesy to make sure that the buildings came straight down rather than toppling over. Terrorists working for the Bush-Cheney administration by contrast could have gotten such access especially given the fact that Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III, the president’s brother and cousin respectively were presidents of the company in charge of the security for the World Trade Center. Another relevant fact was that the evidence was destroyed; an examination of the building steel beams and columns could have shown to explain whether explosives had been used to slice them, but virtually all the steel was removed before it could be properly investigated; then put on ships to Asia to be melted down. It is usually a federal offence to remove anything from a crime scene even a match book. But here over a hundred tons of steel, the biggest destruction evidence in history was carried out under the supervision of federal officials. Evidence was also evidently planted; the passport of one of the hijackers on Flight 11 was allegedly found in the rubble. The passport not only survived the fiery infernal caused by the airplane, but also everything else in these buildings to be pulverized into tiny dust; the magic passport. To sum up, the idea that U.S officials have given a satisfactory or even close to satisfactory explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a Myth; these officials have implicitly admitted this by refusing to engage in rational debate about it. Michael Newman, a spokesman for NIST repeatedly said during a recent interview that “non of the NIST scientists would participate in any public debate with scientists who reject their report.” When Newman would has why NIST would avoid public debate if it had confidence in its report, he replied “because there is no winning in such debates.” In the same interview, Newman had compared people who reject the government’s account of the collapses with people who believe in Big Foot and a flat earth; and yet he fears that his scientists would not be able to show these fools in a public debate. In any case, I come now to the final Myth which is Myth # 9. Myth # 9: “There is no doubt that Flight 77, under the control of Al Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour, struck the Pentagon” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2U4pX7hiX4&eurl= There are in fact many reasons to doubt this claim. We have in the first place reasons to doubt that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was under the control of Hani Hanjour. For one thing the aircraft before hitting the Pentagon, repeatedly executed a 270 degree downward spiral and yet Hani Hanjour was known as a terrible pilot who could not safely fly even a small plane. Wes Wittenberg who flew commercial airplanes for 31 years, after serving in Vietnam as a fighter pilot says that it would have been “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner.” Moreover, as a result of that very difficult maneuver, the Pentagon’s West wing was struck, but a terrorist brilliant enough to get through the U.S military’s defense system would have known that this was the worst place to strike for several reasons: The West wing was reinforced so that the damage was less severe than the strike anywhere else would have been; this wing was still being renovated, so relatively fewer people were there. A strike anywhere else would have killed thousands rather than 125. And the Secretary of Defense and all the top staff who a terrorist would have presumably wanted to kill were on the East wing. Why would an Al Qaeda fighter have executed a very difficult maneuver to hit the West wing, when he could have simply crashed into the roof of the East wing? Here is the second major problem with the official story. There are reasons to believe that the Pentagon was struck only because the officials at the Pentagon wanted it to be stuck. For one thing, Flight 77 allegedly after making a U turn in the Midwest, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes, and yet the U.S military which by then clearly would have known that hijacked airliners were being used as weapons, has the best radar system in world one of which it brags, “does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace.” The idea that a large airliner could have slipped through is absurd. Also the Pentagon is surely the best defended building on the planet; it is not only within the P56 restricted aerospace that extends 17 miles in every direction from the Washington monument, but also in the P56B aerospace the three mile ultra-restricted zone within the White House, Capitol, and the Pentagon. The Pentagon is only a few miles from Andrew’s air force base which has at least three squadrons with fighter jets on alert at all times. The claim by the 9/11 Commission report that no fighters were on alert the morning of 9/11 is wholly implausible, as I have explained in my book on this subject. The Pentagon moreover is reportedly protected by batteries of surfaced air missiles, so if any aircraft without a U.S military transponder would enter the Pentagon’s aerospace, it would shot down. So even if the aircraft had hit the Pentagon with Flight 77, it could have succeeded only because the officials in the Pentagon turned off their missiles as well as ordering the fighters from Andrew’s to stand down. A third major problem with the official story is that there is considerable evidence that it could not have been Flight 77 because it was not a Boeing 757. For one thing, the strike on the Pentagon unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers did not create a detectable signal. Also according to several witnesses and many people who have studied the available photographs, both the damage and the degree were inconsistent with the strike by a large airliner; that issue however, is too complex to discuss here, as is the issue of what should be inferred from conflicting eyewitness testimony. Deferring those topics to another time, I will conclude by pointing out that the suspicion that the Pentagon was struck by a 757 as the government claims, is supported by the fact that evidence was destroyed. Shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris and carried it off. Shortly thereafter, the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up. Also the videos from security cameras on the nearby Sitco gas station and the Sheraton Hotel which would show what really hit the Pentagon, were immediately confiscated by agents of the FBI, and the Department of Justice has to this day refused to release them. If these videos would prove that the Pentagon was really hit by a 757, most of us would assume that the government would release them. To conclude, it would seem for many reasons, that the official story of 9/11 which has served as a religious Myth in the intervening years is a Myth in the pejorative sense of the story that does not correspond with reality. Extracted from the full feature documentary "9/11: The Myth and The Reality exposes the official story of 9/11 for what it truly is: a sacred myth" which recorded the live speeches of Philosopher and Theologist Dr. David Ray Griffin at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (4/3/06) and at The Grand Lake Theater in Oakland (3/30/06), USA.

Except The Beatles and U2, this list is down to hearing it from my brother or I. [Actually - as they both like alot of amazing older band from 60's, 70's I'm gonna leave all them out] The Beatles (Both), Radiohead (both), Muse (Both), Supergrass (Both), Doves (Mother), early Placebo (Mother), Jeff Buckley (Mother), Mew (Mother), early Oasis (Dad), Manic Street Preachers (Both), early U2 (Both).....and probs Coldplay I guess.

Your totally and utterlly got me wrong there.......again you simply just don't know who indeed the decision makers are and your naive comments show that need to spend some time away from attacking me and start learning more about the Global Elite network - because it's an area you obviously don't understand. It's so complexed and is paramount to fully compreheding the full picture. By making the 'Tamed' comment I meant that powerful Elite in Europe have a big role to play in way the American Elite work....they are all connected but recently there has been discontent over their plans for Iran. U.S/Israeli Elite wanted to attack before now and the European branch thought it couldn't yet be fully accepted by both sets of the public. So instead of calling me a 'dumbfuck' please go away and learn something real before you start badly attempted arguments with me. Just don't be so god damn naive.

Violent Solar Storm Headed Towards Earth Sofia Friday, December 15, 2006 A violent explosion in the Sun's atmosphere is bombarding the Earth at over 1 M km/h, which will cause a brilliant light show while threatening to damage power grids and communications systems. Images from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory showed a bright flash near the Sun's equator overnight. Several of SOHO's sensors became temporarily overwhelmed by the amount of radiation emitted by the flares. On December 13, a solar flare from sunspot 930 has sent a giant coronal mass ejection directly toward Earth. The X-Class flare was classified as one of the larger outbursts from the sun. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued an advisory reporting a geomagnetic storm in progress that has produced strong radiation blackouts. Strong to severe geomagnetic storming is expected through Friday. The advisory warns of potential disruptions over the next four days. The astronauts on the space shuttle will be safe from the sun's cloud of gas, NOAA said. The danger from such strong solar flares is that they send out clouds of charged particles that could damage communication systems and power grids. Nevertheless this solar flare will cause the so-called Northern Lights, which are a tremendous lights show.

This air traiffic controller actually is very experienced and knows about the systems and procedures involved in such situations.

Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job Knew people in FAA on day of hijackings who said intercept procedures should have been enacted as normal Thursday, December 14, 2006 A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11. A recording of the phone conversation was posted on Google video late yesterday by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth organization. After having acquired a background in aviation, Hordon underwent rigorous FAA training to become an air traffic controller and was posted to Boston Center where he worked for eleven years. He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his conclusions. In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure, he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they could represent nothing other than an inside job. "On September 11th I'm one of the few people who really within quite a few hours of the whole event taking place just simply knew that it was an inside job, and it wasn't because of the visuals, the collapses, whatever....I knew that it was an inside job I think within about four or five o'clock that afternoon and the reason that I knew is because when those aircraft did collide and then we got the news and information on where the aircraft were and where they went....if they knew where the aircraft were and were talking to them at a certain time then normal protocol is to get fighter jet aircraft up assist," said Hordon. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9147890225218338952&hl=en Hordon said that from personal experience he knew the system was always ready to immediately scramble intercepting fighters and that any reversal of that procedure would have been unprecedented and abnormal. He had also personally handled both real hijacking situations in his airspace and other emergency procedures. "I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their own protocols," he stated. Hordon said that the only way the airliners could have avoided being intercepted was if a massive electrical and communications failure had occurred which it didn't on that day, adding that there was "no way" the hijacked airliners could have reached their targets otherwise. He highlighted the fact that only an emergency handling of aircraft protocol change on that day could have interrupted standard operating procedure and hijacking protocol. Hordon said it was unbelievable how far American Airlines Flight 11 was allowed to go off course without the appropriate action being taken on behalf of flight controllers. "What you do is you don't wait for the judge, jury and executioner to prove it's an emergency, if things start to go wrong you have the authority to simply say I am going to treat this craft as if it is an emergency, because if everybody's wrong then fifteen minutes later no big thing." Hordon emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a hijacking is even confirmed. He went on to explain how as soon as the hijacking of Flight 11 was confirmed at around 8:24am, the entire system, from every FAA center coast to coast, to the Pentagon, to the President were informed and knew of the hijacking. "The system now had to make some phone calls and call up Rummy's Pentagon and Rummy's Pentagon is the one that would then make the decision." "Well, Rummy's Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone, neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere along the flight of United 93 and American 77 - first formal contact was at this particular time," said Hordon. "That is all distractionary, that is all designed to keep people off the focus - the real focus is what the air traffic controller did immediately upon seeing that American 11 was in trouble and what we do as air traffic controllers is we get eyes and ears on this flight." Hordon underscored the fact that after the confirmed hijacking of Flight 11, the entire FAA system would have been on full alert and obsessively watching the skies for any unusual activity, and that such activity as the hijacking of Flight 77 would have been immediately reported to supervisors instantaneously, as well as being continually tracked. "If the air traffic controller were going by emergency procedures which he is trained to do, he would have reached out directly to ADC (NORAD) and say what do you see?" said Hordon. This highlights the absurdity of Dulles controllers mistaking Flight 77 for a fighter jet as it approached Washington as was reported, and the plane's over 40 minute uninterrupted journey to the Pentagon after a hijack was confirmed. Hordon debunked the recent Vanity Fair piece that whitewashed NORAD's response as a consequence of confusion and the supposition that NORAD needs exact flight coordinates to enact any kind of response, and that the planes were supposedly invisible to radar and couldn't be tracked properly. "It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said. "Further information indicates later the NORAD radars had it tracked....the bottom line of the story is that all of those aircraft were always tracked all the time by the FAA air traffic control centers," said Hordon, pointing out that information showing air traffic controllers tried insistently to alert military command structures is being locked down because it points to finger of responsibility to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, who were also tracking all the aircraft from the point of hijacking to the impact on their targets. This is the reason why, as Hordon stated, that we don't have complete access to flight data recorders and FAA tapes, which in the case of a [/url=conversation between six New York Air Route Traffic Control Center controllers was ordered to be shredded[/url], because if studies of that evidence were undertaken it would become very clear as to who was really behind the attack. "What they did is they cherry picked transmissions, communications and statements made all on these four flights that were able to paint and write a story that the public would look at and so ooh wow, this really happened - but it wasn't factual, it was a story and it tell not tell anything other than what the high perps wanted the public to hear - they cherry picked this information," said Hordon. Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.

When I visit I always go straight to the News & Sport section then onto the Instrument Room. From there it's Technologicalized and finally I MIGHT check out the other parts.

Absolute shite.

What? are you serious? ^ What a purely worthless comment, please don't say things like this, you should be embarrassed. And yes I do know alot about 9/11....and you should too. Don't give up your mind man....and don't go looking at the crazy 9/11 stuff that's out there.....because there are a lot of needless theories and disinformation out there, I know.....but the stuff I talk about is very, very real and needs addressed seriously. The way you are talking gives me the impression that your going to have big heart aching realisation about what's really going on. My country's Government is as much involved in horrible shit......plus most the top, powerful elite are from europe...who actually out-muscle their US counterparts on most things....it's a global issue...just the US it a single mega power that need to be tamed apparently. And you seem to think I'm going against America......what the fuck does that even mean to you? Going against your country is such an open statement and I am infact only against a small criminal element within your goverment - otherwise your county is beautiful place with many natural treasures and landmarks (be they mostly ran/controlled by the U.N however). Oh, and check those Bush quotes all you like (if you can at all be bothered) and then come back and say "sorry, I'm wrong, you indeed did not make those quotes up, he just sounds like a 5 year old". haha, just kidding. Just a simple sorry will do.

Alleged Liquid Bomb Plot Credibility Crumbles Court clears Rauf of charges as much vaunted transatlantic airliner attack dissipates into another staged terror alert Wednesday, December 13, 2006 The alleged ringleader of a much vaunted plot to blow up multiple transatlantic airliners using liquid explosives has been cleared of terrorism charges and of being a member of any terrorist group, rendering August's terror scare another hyped creation of government scare mongering. In every single major terror bust or terror alert we have proven the evidence to be flawed and the charges to be cooked up nonsense aimed at prolonging the illusion that terror cells are lurking around every corner waiting to cause mayhem. The geopolitical agenda of the U.S., Britain and Israel depends on the proliferation phony terror threats in order to continue the farcical war on terror and take more of our innate freedoms at home to stifle dissent against the plot for worldwide hegemony. The supposed transatlantic bomb plot has dissipated into another staged terror alert. The BBC reports, "A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges. He has moved the case of Rashid Rauf, a Briton, from an anti-terrorism court to a regular court, where he faces lesser charges such as forgery." "The Pakistani authorities described him as a key figure." "But an anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi found no evidence that he had been involved in terrorist activities or that he belonged to a terrorist organisation." Since the panic surrounding the ridiculous hoax that led to an outright ban on all liquids in U.S. and British airports, the credibility of the alleged plot itself has crumbled. In a series of reports following the August 10th scare, we traced the source of the alleged attack plot to Pakistani and British intelligence and were rapidly able to confirm that the story was nothing more than a manufactured ploy to frighten travelers at the height of the holiday season. It comes as no surprise that the Pakistanis have acquitted Rashid Rauf. His involvement with the Lashkar-e-Toiba group provides a direct lineage back to the Pakistani ISI, which is in turn controlled by the CIA and British intelligence. Rauf likely acted as the willing patsy for the plot to be pinned on while the Blair government waved it in front of Britons as another reason for them to accept the Blairstrip One fascist surveillance state without dissent. It was revealed that the alleged terrorist cell that planned to blow up ten planes had been completely infiltrated for weeks before the announcement of the foiled plot by British intelligence. From the evidence at hand allied with past history of how MI5 work, which was presented in our article, it can be reasonably claimed that an MI5 mole within the group orchestrated the entire operation. According to news reports the British government and MI5 wanted to wait at least a week before busting the liquid terror cell that their agents had fully infiltrated, including planting a mole within the bomb squad. From the acknowledged timeline and admission that the real attack was scheduled for August 16th - little else can be deduced but the shocking fact that MI5 wanted the bombings to go forward - arresting the perpetrators only after the attack. Echoing the activities of the 7/7 bombers, some of the main suspects in the case aside from Rashid Rauf exhibited behavior that in no way suggested they were preparing to launch mid-air suicide attacks on jumbo jets. Far from preparing his last will and testament, psyching himself up for his imminent death or acquiring the necessary materials to conduct the operation, Tayib Rauf was caught on CCTV hours before the launch of the plot doing something far more mundane - he was buying cakes for his father's confectionary business. Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray slammed the so-called foiled plot story as "propaganda" on behalf of Bush and Blair who yearn for a "new 9/11" to reinvigorate their flagging support base. "None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time," said Murray. Sources suggest that insider speculators with informants inside the British intelligence apparatus took advantage of their foreknowledge of the announcement of the foiled terror plot to place put options on airline stocks, reaping the benefits of their subsequent fall. Airline stocks dropped as much as 28 per cent during morning trading following the announcement of the alleged liquid bomb plot.

Ten Lies-But Denying The Truth of 911 The Official Government Version of 9-11 Is Just Another Lie In A Whole Litany of Lies But Many People Believe It. Why? Liberals and conservatives make strange bedfellows, especially when it comes to uncovering the truth about 911. Curious indeed: some of the most outspoken, liberal, leftwing opponents of the Bush crime spree share the same, uncritical acceptance of 911 events as rabid, rightwing conservatives. Below I have listed ten "Great Lies" of the Bush regime. These are all verified, bald-faced lies. Even staunch Bush defenders might have a difficult time defending these documented lies. Yet when it comes to the official government version of 911 events, the Left and Right lock hands in what can only be described as an unexplainable, aberrant disorder. "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society," said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Pity Emerson never knew the neocons. In the interest of fairness, I listed some pretty flagrant lies, in no particular order. Ironically, one of the lies turns out to be the truest thing GWB ever uttered. Great Lie #1. Bush as Uniter. "I'm a uniter, not a divider....I am someone who is a uniter, not a divider. I don't believe in group thought, pitting one group of people against another." -GW Bush, Nov 22, 1999 Great Lie #2. Nation-building. "I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation building." -GW Bush, 2000 (In other words, troops should be used for nation destroying). Great Lie #3. Hurricane Relief. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" (Praise for FEMA Director, Michael Brown, in the immediate aftermath of Katrina). "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." -President Bush, on Good Morning America, Sept. 1, 2005, six days after repeated warnings from experts about the scope of damage expected from Hurricane Katrina and months after the National Geographic featured an exact scenario of disastrous events. Great Lie #4. The Capture of Osama Bin Laden. "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." -GW Bush, Sept 13, 2001 "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him...to be honest with you." - GW Bush, March 13, 2002 "I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - GW Bush, March 13, 2003 "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations." - GW Bush, Oct 13, 2004 Great Lie #5. Weapons of Mass Destruction. "Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction....We know Saddam has them...We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...and we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, we found them." Great Lie #6. Mission Accomplished "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." "The Mission Accomplished sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished." -GW Bush, News Conference, 10/28/03. In fact, the banner was produced by White House personnel. Great Lie #7. We Don't Torture. "There are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq...It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of Americ and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective." -GW Bush, Sept 15, 2006 Great Lie #8. Budget Deficit. "Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term." - GW Bush, State of the Union, 2002. In Fact: The deficit would become the largest in history and will exceed $400 Billion annually for the next ten years. Great Lie #9. Post--911 Attack Speech. "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice...This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace." Great Lie #10 (The Greatest Lie of Them ALL).Solemn Oath To Uphold The US Constitution. "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - GW Bush, Being sworn into office, Jan. 20, 2001 After listing the litany of lies above (only a partial listing of lies in the last six years), one cannot help but conclude: The government of George W. Bush, and everyone connected with it, lies ALL THE TIME, as standard operating procedure. I am reminded of what that great Sioux leader, Red Cloud said: "They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one: they promised to take our land and they took it." Can someone, anyone, perhaps some 911 debunker, Alexander Cockburn or Sean Hannity for example, point to a single honest remark or a single honest person in the administration? And if not, then why should any reasonable person believe a commission appointed by the administration, a cabal of liars? Logically then, one could conclude, that anyone who believes the official version of 911 events, the Bush government version of events, whether liberal or conservative, prefers a litany of unbelievable lies to the harsh truth. Since nothing about 911 rings true, the acceptance of the monstrous lie (told by liars) appears most perplexing when one considers not a single other lie listed above has ever been proven truthful (Except the nation-building/ nation-destroying treachery which turned out to be true). Thus one could rightly say, anyone who believes 911 occurred exactly as the government-sanctioned, Bush--appointed, Kean Commission described it, is either a damn fool, a pathetic coward, an indoctrinated dupe, or an ignorant ass. Truthfully, no other description suffices.

^ You make terrible points there. It's like a younger childs statement I assume your still talking about Pearl Harbor as you are talking about Europe being attacked....This is the wrong thread .

:huh2: :thumbsdown: Yeeeeaaah, ok.

(I'm not trying to convince myself, haha, and it's not just simply about oil though.) ALSO - Pearl Harbor? Are you kidding me? All the top Generals in Washington knew about the planned attack on the harbor. General George C. Marshall failed to inform the General Walter Short (I think it's his name) in Hawaii about the message they had intercepted from the Japanese on the 4th of December, which is three days before the event on the 7th of December. This is elementry History. But somehow this is called a Conspiracy Theory? I don't get it. Well, I do......it's the media/governments way of getting around it, without dealing with it properly.

What? He just called people like me "dumbfucks" a couple of times and said "you should not be allowed to reproduce".....aswell as just saying this is all 'dumb' and is 'bullshit'...saying it blindly......and I am the one who insults people all the time? I called him an asshole for the pretty sad things he said, so what. Also "cling to Theories like this?"..........what??....You know we have got them pretty much caught, no-matter what you and other people say. I'm just involved in this because it's so obviously an inside job it's worth spreading the truth. Nothing get a really fair outing in the mainstream media...every so often they will be someone who allows a little bit too much info to get on the air but other than that there is a media-black out on the big questions....while the media just focus on the same couple of areas's and use the same old "it's crazy, they are all crackpots".....when infact nobody thinks I'm a crackpot...nobody has said it to me in person because they more often know me for fair while before I tell them about 9/11 - they know I'm a good, honest, sensible person so they actually listen. Anyway...as I was saying...it WAS an inside job, but if you choose not to believe it then that's your problem, it's certainly not mine and even when the BBC do their best to white-wash the whole thing in their 9/11 TV Programme next year, the evidence and unanswered question still will remain. ALSO - Pearl Harbor? Are you kidding me? All the top Generals in Washington knew about the planned attack on the harbor. General George C. Marshall failed to inform the General Walter Short (I think it's his name) in Hawaii about the message they had intercepted from the Japanese on the 4th of December, which is three days before the event on the 7th of December. This is elementry History.

Anyone can just say "no it's not true" over and over again....I guess it's better for you this way, huh? Nice and simple. Plus, you do know that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen right? This stuff is even in mainstream news. Just reading through what you posted.... Boy, your a new kind of asshole aren't you? Jesus, I've never heard that before..:rolleyes:..ha...well done, you just crossed the line into completely useless.

No, no really we don't. I do agree that some people don't do the best job concerning the 9/11 cover-up. BUT....all my questions are valid.....and they aren't crazy at all. There's a whole bunch of stuff which is very incriminating and I'm just concerned about that. You have to agree that I've never gone as far as this train bull? It's madness....but there are actually people making those type of sites to try and stop the questions I pose being taken seriously...because they really should.

Video: Terror drama mocks 9/11 'truthseekers' Raw Story Tuesday, December 12, 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymfRbx6n0Y8&eurl= Earlier this week, TV cable channel Showtime began the second season of Sleeper Cell: American Terror. The clip, from the show's season opener, begins with mastermind Farik (played by Oded Fuhr) facing torture at the hands of his American interrogators. "Terrorist" characters on the show mock people who don't believe the official government explanation for Sep. 11. The character of a Bosnian terrorist, Ilija Korjenic (played by Henry Lubatti), shares an intimate moment with fellow terrorist, Mina (portrayed by Thelka Reuten). For a few moments, they sarcastically repeat familiar 9/11 conspiracy theories. Show dialog (warning: contains profanity): Female: You know every time we have sex it's like the ultimate 'Fuck you' to Bush, Cheney, and the whole 9/11 plot. I just keep picturing Guiliani and the rest of those assholes supervising the whole thing from that 15 million dollar bunker on the 23rd floor of building 7. You know thats where they broadcast the homing signal from? [To] make sure the planes would hit the towers. Male: I know and the Pentagon was actually hit by a CIA global hawk drone so the administration could start an endless war and turn America into a police state. Female: And what idiot could believe that Osama Bin Laden and his cave dwelling muslim militia managed to outsmart the CIA, the NSA, and the Pentagon - unless Uncle Sam was behind the whole thing. Male: Not me.

"60 Percent Of Ground Zero Workers Sick" PBS News You Tube Tuesday, December 12, 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bA57ObvVLc&eurl=

Yeah sure, whatever. I'll say it again The very fact that you even attempt to tie my questions with the train rubbish you have posted proves your very immature and just stupid at a fundamentally basic level. Now go away!

Because I'm not a idiot who believes in trains causing it, you absolute moron.....and NOBODY really thinks it was trains, including yourself. ALL my questions are valid. Here's just some for example... Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks? How could the hijackers disable The Pentagons airspace automatic missile defense systems? Why was Dick Cheney in charge of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) on 9/11? Which is the first time in its history that anyone other then the NORAD commander has been in charge. Why did George Bush say they (or any previous administration) had never imagined an attack like this before when he had been given a security report before 9/11 which mentioned the exact type of attack on the WTC and the Pentagon? Why were drills matching the exact attack being carried out on the morning of 9/11? (Again, I thought they could never imagine this type of attack?) Why did an aide to Dick Cheney testify to the 9/11 commisson that he warned him about incoming planes multiple times on 9/11 but was told stick to the current plan of not scrambling jets and to stop informing him of the imminent crashes? Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane? (And why can't we see the 80+ tapes?) How did they find a passport that just "happens" to belong to one of the hijackers in the WTC rubble and they can't locate even ONE flight recorder? Why is there clearly bombs exploding inside WTC buildings at they fall and why hasn't that been addressed? Why was there a US military build up around Afghanistan before 9/11? Why is it NOT Bin Laden in the 'admission video'? Why have workers at the WTC said that there were very suspicious evacuations and power downs in the weeks before 9/11 and heard unexplianed drilling work being carried out on many floors? Why did both Twin Towers and Building 7 collapse at approx. free fall speeds? Why the strange pattern of debris from Flight 93? Why is WTC7 an obvious controlled demolition and is ignored by the 9/11 comission? Why did none of the 19 hijackers appeared on the passenger lists?How did they come up with the "culprits" so quickly? Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of the classroom? Why was security meeting scheduled for 9/11cancelled by WTC management on 9/10? Why did FEMA spokesman Tom Kenney tell Dan Rather he was in New York on Sept. 10? Why did none of the 19 hijackers appeared on the passenger lists? Why did Atta place a video "how to fly planes", a uniform and his last will into his bag, knowing that he would commit suicide? (planted evidence) Why did Atta decide to study at Opa Locka, a famous hub of 6 Navy training bases and includes government partners like U.S. Coast Guard Air Station, Police (Miami-Dade) Aviation Unit? Why was Atta allowed to study since he was stopped by the police for driving without a license and also or violating his visa? The very fact that you even attempt to tie my questions with the train rubbish you have posted proves your very immature and silly at a fundamentally basic level. You should be ashamed of yourself.