World Leaders who question the official story of 9/11

[Zyxius]

This is a sitting US Senator who says on the floor of their Senate that the official story of 9/11 is obviously not true and demands new investigation. The War on Terror is based on lies.


http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/118233
Sen. Karen Johnson's floor speech about 9/11
Provided to the Tribune
9/11 Floor Speech

MR. PRESIDENT – POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS IN THE GALLERY … and then I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT MY REMARKS OF MORE THAN 200 WORDS BE ENTERED INTO THE JOURNAL.

Members -- I would like to introduce a very special guest who has been joined today by several of his closest friends. Up in the gallery, we have many of the members of the Phoenix 9/11 Truth group – people who are asking for a new, independent investigation of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In particular, I would like to introduce to you a VERY courageous man named Blair Gadsby. I’m going to ask the folks with Blair to help him to stand as I tell you a little about him. Blair is very weak because he has been fasting for more than two weeks to try to bring attention to the cause of 9/11 Truth. This is the 16th day that Blair has gone without food and spent his day outside the office of U.S. Senator John McCain pleading with the senator to take a look at new evidence in the 9/11 crimes. We have one man who is sacrificing his own personal needs and desires to stand boldly pleading for the world to take notice, to question, to research and not place their lives into the hands of media sound-bites, - to think for themselves, consciously and critically. Blair is an educator and to me this is what the great educators do. Thousands of people all over the country and actually around the world have been watching on the internet as this Hunger Strike progresses here in Phoenix. I want Blair to know that I am his biggest fan and that good people everywhere admire him for his courage and determine. Please give a warm welcome to Blair Gadsby and the Phoenix 9/11 Truth movement. (STOP)

*************************************************************

(FLOOR SPEECH) Last month, I started speaking publicly regarding my concerns about the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which brought down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, as well as Building 7. If you’ve watched the media coverage since I first began to speak out, you know how vicious and irrational it has been toward me. The media have worked hard to try to make it seem silly to even question the 9/11 Commission Report, even though some of its own authors have done so, including both of the Commission Co-Chairmen – Mr. Hamilton and Keane.

Actually, the 9/11 Commission Report represents just one theory – the theory that fire and the damage from the airplane impacts brought down the three buildings. This theory explains none of the features of the destruction that we all witnessed that day and which we can still observe on hundreds of videos. It explains nothing about how in four out of four cases, no hijacking code was transmitted by the hijacked airliners, and in four of four cases, no fighter jets managed to get alongside any of the hijacked airliners. The military officers who lied to Congress about their failure to protect America would have been referred for prosecution by some of the 9/11 Commissioners, but those Commissioners were told that they did not have that authority. The events of that day were a heinous crime against our nation and our citizens, and the sense of justice that exists in each one of us demands to know what really happened and how all the perpetrators will be caught and punished. The speculation and theorizing won’t end until a thorough, transparent investigation, free of conflicts of interest, takes place.

Among the many theories that you can find on the Internet is one that rises above all the rest. It is rock-solid, confirmed by hard evidence, and supported by hundreds of scholars, architects, engineers and other professionals who have the education, training, and expertise to know what they’re talking about. This is the theory that explosive demolitions brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7. I’ve placed a handout on each of your desks which has a photo of one of the towers as it begins to collapse. I’d like you to take a look at that photo, if you will. Notice in the picture that you see steel beams being flung outward from the building, and great huge clouds of dust that is actually pulverized concrete. A building that falls down, doesn’t pulverize itself into dust as it drops. Imagine dropping a chunk of concrete 30 feet or more. Is it going to fall apart into dust? No. Yet, the concrete in the towers was blasted into powder that covered all of Manhattan. You can see that powder already being formed long before that upper section has fallen more than a few floors. As you look at that photo, ask yourself, “Is this a picture of a building collapsing or is this a picture of a building exploding?” Does a building that collapses have the ability to fling its own steel beams sideways up to 600 feet? Does a building that is just starting to collapse blast its contents outwards in a massive cloud of dust? What do you see in that photo? I see an explosion. And so do millions of other people who are demanding a real investigation.

More important than simply looking at a photo -- engineers, architects, and scientists have evaluated the rubble at Ground Zero and other aspects of the buildings ,and they have found evidence of at least 15 different characteristics of explosion. These 15 characteristics are listed on the handout as well.

Despite the media’s outragious attacks on my sanity, intelligence, and patriotism, the emails and phone calls to my office have been 95 percent supportive of my request for a new investigation. I’ve been amazed, really, to see just how overwhelmingly the public rejects the official reports, not only of the 9/11 Commission but also those by FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). I assumed that expressing skepticism about the official story of 9/11 would be a punishing issue for an elected official, but I’m finding that it’s quite the opposite. The public wants its leaders to stand up and be counted when it appears that something is wrong. "The truth will set you free." Blair Gadsby and my guests today want the the truth about 9/11. The American PEOPLE want the truth about 9/11 – they want a new investigation, and so do I.

I have provided each of you with a DVD entitled, "Improbable Collapse." I’m hopeful that you will watch it with an open mind and that you’ll also study some of the wonderful, well-researched articles on the internet. I’ve included a list of the most credible websites with your handout.

You don’t have to embrace every theory about 9/11. Indeed, there are some that should be soundly rejected. But if you believe, as these scientists, architects and engineers do, that the buildings were brought down by explosive demolition – then you must also agree that we need a new investigation. I have no preconceived notions about who did it and I am not pointing the finger of blame at anyone. But I do think that the worst attack on U.S. soil in American history deserves the best investigation possible, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL PEOPLE LIKE US BEGIN TO SPEAK OUT. The families of the nearly three thousand people who died on Sept. 11 – and the families of those who have been poisoned and died from the toxic residue that hung in the air for weeks afterward during the clean-up operation -- deserve to know what killed their loved ones. If anyone else was involved in the planning and implementation of the attacks, then they need to be brought to justice. I ask you to study the material I have given you and then join me in the call for a new investigation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

 

[Zyxius]

Former German Cabinet Minister calls 9/11 an inside job

15/16 January 2002


Former German Cabinet Minister Attacks
Official Brainwashing On September 11 Issue
Points at "Mad Dog" Zbig and Huntington
Source: Tagesspiegel, 13 Jan 2002

In a full-page interview with the Sunday edition (Jan. 13) of the Berlin Tagesspiegel daily, former German Minister of Technology, Andreas von Buelow, said he does not buy any of the official theories that have been presented to date, on the events of September 11.

The apparent failure of the U.S. Administration including its 26 secret agencies with an annual budget of $30 billion, to come up with any convincing assessment, was one big problem that von Buelow addressed, in quite some detail.

He then addressed the role of the official "brainwashing of the Western mass democracies" on the Sept. 11 issue, in promoting the new enemy image of "Islamic terrorism," along lines developed earlier, by senior advisors of the U.S. Administration:

"I am not the origin of the idea of the enemy image. It originates with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two pioneers of American secret intelligence and foreign policies.

"Already in the mid-1990s, Huntington opined that people in Europe and the USA needed someone they could hate -- that would strengthen the identification with their own society. And Brzezinski, that mad dog, already at his time as advisor to President Jimmy Carter, campaigned for the sole right of the USA to all the world's raw materials, especially crude oil and natural gas."

Von Buelow also addressed the role of Brzezinski, personally, in setting up the afghani operation of armed "Islamic" guerilla warfare against the USSR Afghanistan invasion in and after 1979 -- the Taliban being generated by the same operation, after all.

As for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as such, von Buelow remarked: "Planning the attacks was a master deed, in technical and organizational terms. To hijack four big airliners within a few minutes and fly them into targets within a single hour and doing so on complicated flight routes! That is unthinkable, without backing from the secret apparatuses of state and industry."

He added that laying false tracks of investigation has been an accompanying feature of covert operations ever since they have been launched by influential agencies, so that he is convinced that the full truth behind Sept. 11 still has to be sought.

A partial translation follows.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: You seem so angry, really upset.
Andreas Von Buelow: I can explain what's bothering me: I see that after the horrifying attacks of Sept. 11, all political public opinion is being forced into a direction that I consider wrong.
Q: What do you mean by that?
Von Buelow: I wonder why many questions are not asked. Normally, with such a terrible thing, various leads and tracks appear that are then commented on, by the investigators, the media, the government: Is there something here or not? Are the explanations plausible? This time, this is not the case at all. It already began just hours after the attacks in New York and Washington and --
Q: In those hours, there was horror, and grief.
Von Buelow: Right, but actually it was astounding: There are 26 intelligence services in the U.S.A. with a budget of $30 billion--
Q: More than the German defense budget.
Von Buelow: --which were not able to prevent the attacks. In fact, they didn't even have an inkling they would happen. For 60 decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the ground, 48 hours later, however, the FBI presented a list of suicide attackers. Within ten days, it emerged that seven of them were still alive.
Q: What, please?
Von Buelow: Yes, yes. And why did the FBI chief take no position regarding contradictions? Where the list came from, why it was false? If I were the chief investigator (state attorney) in such a case, I would regularly go to the public, and give information on which leads are valid and which not.
Q: The U.S. government talked about an emergency situation after the attacks: They said they were in a war. Is it not understandable that one does not tell the enemy everything one knows about him?
Von Buelow: Naturally. But a government which goes to war, must first establish who the attacker, the enemy, is. It has a duty to provide evidence. According to its own admission, it has not been able to present any evidence that would hold up in court.
Q: Some information on the perpetrators has been proven with documents. The suspected leader, Mohammad Atta, left Portland for Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, in order to board the plane that later hit the World Trade Center
Von Buelow: If this Atta was the decisive man in the operation, it's really strange that he took such a risk of taking a plane that would reach Boston such a short time before the connecting flight. Had his flight been a few minutes late, he would not have been in the plane that was hijacked. Why should a sophisticated terrorist do this? One can, by the way, read on CNN (Internet) that none of these names were on the official passenger lists. None of them had gone through the check-in procedures. And why did none of the threatened pilots give the agreed-upon code 7700 over the [Steuerknueppel: STEERING NOB?] to the ground station? In addition: The black boxes which are fire and shock proof, as well as the voice recordings, contain no valuable data--
Q: That sounds like--
Von Buelow: --like assailants who, in their preparations, leave tracks behind them like a herd of stampeding elephants? They made payments with credit cards with their own names; they reported to their flight instructors with their own names. They left behind rented cars with flight manuals in Arabic for jumbo jets. They took with them, on their suicide trip, wills and farewell letters, which fall into the hands of the FBI, because they were stored in the wrong place and wrongly addressed. Clues were left like behind like in a child's game of hide-and-seek, which were to be followed!


There is also the theory of one British flight engineer:


According to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside.


The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case. That's a theory....
Q: Which sounds really adventurous, and was never considered.
Von Buelow: You see! I do not accept this theory, but I find it worth considering. And what about the obscure stock transactions? In the week prior to the attacks, the amount of transactions in stocks in American Airlines, United Airlines, and insurance companies, increased 1,200%. It was for a value of $15 billion. Some people must have known something. Who?
Q: Why don't you speculate on who it might have been.
Von Buelow: With the help of the horrifying attacks, the Western mass democracies were subjected to brainwashing. The enemy image of anti-communism doesn't work any more; it is to be replaced by peoples of Islamic belief. They are accused of having given birth to suicidal terrorism.
Q: Brainwashing? That's a tough term.
Von Buelow: Yes? But the idea of the enemy image doesn't come from me. It comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two policy-makers of American intelligence and foreign policy. Already in the middle of he 1990s, Huntingon believed, people in Europe and the U.S. needed someone they could hate-- this would strengthen their identification with their own society. And Brzezinski, the mad dog, as adviser to President Jimmy Carter, campaigned for the exclusive right of the U.S. to seize all the raw materials of the world, especially oil and gas.
Q: You mean, the events of Sept. 11--
Von Buelow: --fit perfectly in the concept of the armaments industry, the intelligence agencies, the whole military-industrial-academic complex. This is in fact conspicuous. The huge raw materials reserves of the former Soviet Union are now at their disposal, also the pipeline routes and--
Q: Erich Follach described that at length in Spiegel: ``It's a matter of military bases, drugs, oil and gas reserves.''
Von Buelow: I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.
Q: You are a conspiracy theorist!
Von Buelow: Yeah, yeah. That's the ridicule heaped [on those raising these questions] by those who would prefer to follow the official, politically correct line. Even investigative journalists are fed propaganda and disinformation. Anyone who doubts that, doesn't have all his marbles! That is your accusation.
Q: Your career actually speaks against the idea that you are not in your right mind. You were already in the 1970s, state secretary in the Defense Ministry; in 1993 you were the SPD [Social Democratic Party] speaker in the Schalk-Golodkowski investigation committee--
Von Buelow: And it all began there! Until that time, I did not have any great knowledge of the work of intelligence agencies. And now we had to take note of a great discrepancy: We shed light on the dealings of the Stasi and other East bloc intelligence agencies in the field of economic criminality, but as soon as we wanted to know something about the activities of the BND [German intelligence] or the CIA, it was mercilessly blocked. No information, no cooperation, nothing! That's when I was first taken aback.
Q: Schalck-Golodkowski mediated, among other things, various business deals abroad. When you looked at his case more closely--
Von Buelow: We found, for example, a clue in Rostock, where Schalck organized his weapons depot. Well, then we happened upon an affiliation of Schalck in Panama, and then we happened upon Manuel Noriega, who was for many years President, drug dealer, and money launderer, all in one, right? And this Noriega was also on the payroll of the CIA, for $200,000 a year. These were things that really made me curious.
Q: You wrote a book on the dealings of the CIA and Co. In the meantime, you have become an expert regarding the strange things related to intelligence services' work.
Von Buelow: ``Strange things'' is the wrong term. What has gone on, and goes on, in the name of intelligence services, are true crimes.
Q: What would you say determines the work of intelligence services?
Von Buelow: So that we don't have any misunderstandings: I find that it makes sense to have intelligence services....
Q: You don't think much of the earlier proposals by the Greens, who wanted to dismantle these agencies?
Von Buelow: No. It is right to take a look behind the scenes. Getting intelligence about the intentions of an enemy, makes sense. It is important when one tries to put oneself into the mind of the enemy. Whoever wants to understand the CIA's methods, has to deal with its main tasks, covert operations: below the level of war, and outside international law, foreign states are to be influenced, by organizing insurrections, terrorist attacks, usually combined with drugs and weapons trade, and money laundering. This is essentially very simple: One arms violent people with weapons. Since, however, it must not under any circumstances come out, that there is an intelligence agency behind it, all traces are erased, with tremendous deployment of resources.


I have the impression that this kind of intelligence agency spends 90% of its time this way: creating false leads. So that, if anyone suspects the collaboration of the agencies, he is accused of the sickness of conspiracy madness. The truth often comes out only years later. CIA chief Allen Dulles once said: In case of doubt, I would even lie to the Congress!
Q: The American journalist Seymour M. Hersh, wrote in the New Yorker, that even some people in the CIA and government assumed, that certain leads had been laid in order to confuse the investigators. Who, Herr von Buelow, would have done this?
Von Buelow: I don't know that either. How should I? I simply use my common sense, and-- See: The terrorists behaved in such a way to attract attention. And as practicing Muslims, they were in a strip-tease bar, and, drunken, stuck dollar bills into the panty of the dancer.
Q: Things like that also happen.
Von Buelow: It may be. As a lone fighter, I cannot prove anything, that's beyond my capabilities. I have real difficulties, however, to imagine that all this all sprung out of the mind of an evil man in his cave.
Q: Mr. von Buelow, you yourself say that you are alone in your criticism. Formerly, you were part of the political establishment, now you are an outsider.
Von Buelow: That is a problem sometimes, but one gets used to it. By the way, I know a lot of people, including very influential ones, who agree with me, but only in whispers, never publicly.
Q: Do you still have contact with old SPD companions, such as Egon Bahr and former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt?
Von Buelow: There are no close contacts any more. I wanted to go to the last SPD party congress, but I was sick.
Q: Can it be, Mr. von Buelow, that you are a mouthpiece for typical anti-Americanism?
Von Buelow: Nonsense, this has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism. I am a great admirer of this great, open, free society, and always have been. I studied in the U.S.
Q: How did you get the idea that there could be a link between the attacks and the American intelligence agencies?
Von Buelow: Do you remember the first attack on the WorldTrade Center in 1993?
Q: Six people were killed and over a thousand wounded, by a bomb explosion.
Von Buelow: In the middle was the bombmaker, a former Egyptian officer. He had pulled together some Muslims for the attack. They were snuck into the country by the CIA, despite a State Department ban on their entry. At the same time, the leader of the band was an FBI informant.


And he made a deal with the authorities: At the last minute, the dangerous explosive material would be replaced by a harmless powder.


The FBI did not stick to the deal. The bomb exploded, so to speak, with the knowledge of the FBI. The official story of the crime was quickly found: The criminals were evil Muslims.
Q: At the time Soviet soldiers marched into Afghanistan, you were in the cabinet of Helmut Schmidt. What was it like?
Von Buelow: The Americans pushed for trade sanctions, they demanded the boycott of the Olympic games in Moscow....
Q: .... which the German government followed...
Von Buelow: And today we know: It was the strategy of the American security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to destabilize the Soviet Union from neighboring Muslim countries They lured the Russians into Afghanistan, and then prepared for them a hell on earth, their Vietnam. With decisive support of the U.S. intelligence agencies, at least 30,000 Muslim fighters were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a bunch of good-for-nothings and fanatics who were, and still are today, ready for anything.


And one of them is Osama bin Laden. I wrote years ago: ` `It was out of this brood, that the Taliban grew up in Afghanistan, who had been brought up in the Koran schools financed by American and Saudi funds, the Taliban who are now terrorizing the country and destroying it
Q: Even though you say, for the U.S. it was a matter of raw materials in the region, the starting point for the U.S. aggression, was the terrorist attack which cost thousands of human lives.
Von Buelow: Completely true. One must always keep this gruesome act in mind. Nonetheless, in the analysis of political processes, I am allowed to look and see who has advantages and disadvantages, and what is coincidental. When in doubt, it is always worthwhile to take a look at a map, where are raw materials resources, and the routes to them? Then lay a map of civil wars and conflicts on top of that --they coincide. The same is the case with the third map: nodal points of the drug trade.


Where this all comes together, the American intelligence services are not far away. By the way, the Bush family is linked to oil, gas, and weapons trade, through the bin Laden family.
Q: What do you think of the Bin Laden films?
Von Buelow: When one is dealing with intelligence services, one can imagine manipulations of the highest quality. Hollywood could provide these techniques. I consider the videos inappropriate as evidence.
Q: You believe the CIA is capable of anything, [wouldn't stop at anything].
Von Buelow: The CIA, in the state interests of the U.S., does not have to abide by any law in interventions abroad, is not bound by international law; only the President gives orders.


And when funds are cut, peace is on the horizon, then a bomb explodes somewhere. Thus it is proven, that you can't do without the intelligence services; and that the critics are nuts, as Father Bush called them, Bush who was once CIA head and President.


You have to see that the U.S. spends $30 billion on intelligence services, and $13 billion on anti-drug work. And what comes out of it?


The chief of a special unit of the strategic anti-drug work declared, in despair, after 30 years of service, that in every big, important drug case, the CIA came in and took it out of my hands. (Rosalinda: Michael Levin)
Q: Do you criticize the German government for its reaction after Sept. 11?
Von Buelow: No. To assume that the government were independent in these questions, would be naive.
Q: Herr von Buelow, what will you do now?
Von Buelow: Nothing. My task is concluded by saying, it could not have been that way [according to the official story]. Search for the truth!

 

[Zyxius]

Intelligence Experts Dismiss WoT as deception

Euro Intel Experts
Dismiss `War On Terrorism' As Deception

European intelligence experts dismiss the Bush "war on terrorism" as deception and reveal the Realpolitik behind the aggression against Afghanistan.

by Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, 4 Dec 2001

Berlin -- In Germany, where war plans for Afghanistan were already being discussed in July and where several of the "Arab hijackers" lived and studied, intelligence experts say the terror attacks of September 11 could not have been carried out without the support of a state secret service.

Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Verfassungsschutz, told AFP that "the deathly precision" and "the magnitude of planning" behind the attacks of September 11 would have needed "years of planning."

Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, would require the "fixed frame" of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a "loose group" of terrorists like the one allegedly led by Mohammed Atta while he studied in Hamburg.

Many people would have been involved in the planning of such an operation and Werthebach pointed to the absence of leaks as further indication that the attacks were "state organized actions."

Andreas von B'low served on the parliamentary commission which oversees the three branches of the German secret service while a member of the Bundestag (German parliament) from 1969 to 1994, and wrote a book titled Im Namen des Staates (In the Name of the State) on the criminal activities of secret services, including the CIA.

The architectural level planners use corrupt "guns for hire" such as Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist who von B'low called "an instrument of Mossad," high-ranking Stasi (former East German secret service) operatives, or Libyan agents who organize terror attacks using dedicated people, for example Palestinian and Arab "freedom fighters."

The terrorists who actually commit the crimes are what von B'low calls "the working level," such as the 19 Arabs who allegedly hijacked the planes on September 11. "The working level is part of the deception," he said.

"Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation," von B'low said, which is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events. "Journalists don't even raise the simplest questions," he said adding, "those who differ are labeled as crazy."

Both Werthebach and von B'low said the lack of an open and official investigation, such as congressional hearings, into the events of September 11 was incomprehensible.

AFP asked von B'low about the Taliban's ban on opium production: "Seventy percent of the drug trade is licensed by the intelligence agencies," von B'low said, and they are interested in keeping the drug traffic "running through their mills."

"The BND (German secret service) is steered by the CIA and the CIA is steered by Mossad," von B'low said.

Horst Ehmke, who coordinated the German secret services directly under German prime minister Willi Brandt in the 70s, predicted a similar terrorist attack in his novel, Torches of Heaven, published last year, in which Turkish terrorists crash hijacked planes into Berlin.

Eerie Predictions

Although Ehmke had long expected "fundamentalist attacks," when he saw the televised images from September 11, he said it looked like a "Hollywood production."

"Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with 4 hijacked planes without the support of a secret service," Ehmke said, although he did not want to point to any particular agency.

"The most important thing in the struggle against terrorists, who are abusing religion, is the battle for the soul of the people and the nations," Ehmke said. "If this isn't resolved successfully, the 21st Century could be bloodier than the last."

A former Stasi agent who had warned the German secret service of terror attacks in America between September 10-20 told AFP that a high ranking Stasi chief named J'rgen Rogalla, who is "an airplane terror specialist," was probably involved in the attacks of September 11 along with Abu Nidal.

Both Nidal and Rogalla work with the Mossad, the former agent told AFP. Nidal, was said to be in Baghdad, and is a "leading officer for some Mossad agents." The agent said that Nidal was "involved directly" in the events of September 11.

September 11 was preparation for a larger attack on the United States, which is part of "an old plan," the agent said. Based on prior knowledge of this plan, the agent said that more attacks are imminent and that aircraft carriers may be targeted next. Rogalla is also strongly anti-religious and attacks on cathedrals or places of religious significance before Christmas are likely.

Rogalla was responsible for "turning NATO men" to spy for the East. One of the East's NATO spies, Reiner Rupp, known as "Topaz," provided Stasi and the Russians with the organization's highest secrets until he was discovered in 1993 by the BND. A CIA agent known as "Frank Lindsey" worked with Rogalla, according to the former Stasi agent.

Terror Investigation Blocked

Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the administration of George W. Bush blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

In a recently published book, Bin Laden, la verite interdite (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest due to official obstruction of his investigation of terrorism.

O'Neill had been in charge of national security in New York. While with the FBI, O'Neill led an investigation of Osama bin Laden and had forecast the possibility of an organized attack by terrorists operating from within the country.

O'Neill had investigated the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1995, FBI agents working under O'Neill captured Ramzi Yousef, a suspected lieutenant of bin Laden, who later was among those convicted for the World Trade Center bombing.

O'Neill was considered a top-notch investigator and was known for his pugnacity. He was barred by U.S. Ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine from that country. That dispute reportedly involved a struggle between the State Department, which sought to preserve relations with Yemen, and the FBI, represented by O'Neill, who wanted access to Yemeni suspects.

O'Neill, 49, was hired as chief of security at the World Trade Center following a 25-year career with the FBI and died on Sept. 11, the first day of his new job. O'Neill reportedly died after reentering the building to assist others.

Brisard said O'Neill told them that "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it."

Early Warnings

Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, according to The Guardian (UK).

The warnings to the Taliban originated at a four-day meeting of senior Americans, Russians, Iranians and Pakistanis at a hotel in Berlin in mid-July. The meetings took place under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN secretary general Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.

The three Americans at the Berlin meeting were Tom Simons, former US ambassador to Pakistan, Karl "Rick" Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state for south Asian affairs, and Lee Coldren, who headed the office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh affairs in the State Department until 1997.

There were other meetings arranged by Vendrell in which "representatives of the U.S. government and Russia, and the six countries that border with Afghanistan were present," according to the French authors. "Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the table."

The Berlin conference was the third meeting since November 2000 arranged by Mr. Vendrell. As a UN meeting, its official agenda was supposedly confined to trying to find a negotiated solution to the civil war in Afghanistan, ending terrorism and heroin trafficking, and discussing humanitarian aid.

Carpet Of Gold--Or Bombs

The U.S. government's primary objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime in order to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia, the French authors wrote.

Until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia," from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean, they said.

[[This is doubtful. Though it may have ostensibly been the public policy, the timeline of events indicates that a different game-plan was in the works for 2-4 years which is far more complex than just the pipeline.]]

"The oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that," the book says. When the Taliban refused to accept U.S. conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one."

"The Americans indicated to us that in case the Taliban does not behave and in case Pakistan also doesn't help us to influence the Taliban, then the United States would be left with no option but to take an overt action against Afghanistan," said Niaz Naik, a former foreign minister of Pakistan, who attended the meetings.

On French television, Naik said during the "6+2" meeting in Berlin in July, the discussions turned around "the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid."

"And the pipe lines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come," he added.

Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the U.S. representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan.

"Simons said, `either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option'. The words Simons used were `a military operation'," Naik said.

"At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, `either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'," Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the CIA.

 

[Zyxius]

Voices - ITALIAN SAYS 9-11 SOLVED
ITALIAN Ex President SAYS 9-11 SOLVED
Staff, American Free Press

American Free Press

It’s common knowledge, he reveals, CIA, Mossad behind terror attacks

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies.

In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

“All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.
Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and ’80s. Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they termed “false flag” operations—terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcherWebster Tarpley saying “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. "I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America’s propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

© 2007 Staff, American Free Press

SOURCE: 9-11 SOLVED118

According to the former President of the Republic Francesco Cossiga:

Osama-Berlusconi? «Journalistic trap»

It's a Mediaset forgery sent to Al-Jazeerah in order to generate sympathy toward il Cavaliere [Berlusconi]

ROME - «Based on what I've heard, either tomorrow or the day after, the biggest newspaper chain in our country will provide an exceptional scoop, evidence that the video [actually an audio, editor] in which Osama Bin Laden, leader of the 'Great and Powerful Movement of Islamic Retribution Al Qaeda', may Allah bless him!, which contains threats against [Italy's] ex-premier Silvio Berlusconi, is nothing but a forgery created in Mediaset's studios in Milan and forwarded to the Islamic TV network Al-Jazeerah which aired it». So stated the former President of the Republic [of Italy] Francesco Cossiga in a press release.

TRAP - "The 'trap' was set, according to the above mentioned newspaper chain, in order to raise a tidal wave of solidarity toward Berlusconi, at a time when he is in difficulty partly due to another scoop by the same newspaper chain regarding shadowy deals between RAI [Italian state broadcaster] and Mediaset [Berlusconi's media company]", the senator for life continues. "From sources close to Palazzo Chigi, nerve center of the Italian intelligence services, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is proven by the fact that in it Osama Bin Laden "confesses" that Al Qaeda authored the 9/11 attacks on the two towers in New York, while all democratic elements of America and Europe, and especially the Italian center-left, are well aware that the disastrous attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and the Mossad with help from organized Zionists in order to accuse the Arab world and to induce the Western powers to intervene in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is for this reason - Cossiga concludes - that Silvio Berlusconi, the author of the clever forgery, hasn't received a single word of solidarity either from the Quirinale [Presidency], from Palazzo Chigi [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] or from anyone from the center-left!"

SOLIDARITY - In reality Berlusconi has received an expression of solidarity on behalf of the government by Vannino Chiti, Minister of Relations with Parliament: "I express my solidarity with Silvio Berlusconi who has been threatened, along with other European leaders, by the terrorist Osama Bin Laden in his propaganda message. Against terrorism and against these rantings we must strenghten the unity of the Italian body politic and the common effort and the solidarity of Europe's peoples".

mantra77 writes: "The above is my translation of an interview published in Il Corriere della Sera with Italy's ex-President and currently Senator-for-life, Francesco Cossiga. It is important because it confirms that the truth behind 9/11 is well known in Europe's corridors of power

The Corriere is Italy's number two newspaper while Cossiga is Italy's number one loose cannon. While President he started his famous "esternazioni", or rantings, in which he lambasted and ridiculed the octagenarian leadership of the party that monopolized Italian politics for 40 years, his own Democrazia Cristiana, by routinely comparing them to the Soviet politburo. In doing so, he single-handedly created the favorable media/political environment that enabled the clean hands (mani pulite) anti-corruption investigations to get off the ground and destroy the old establishment (partitocrazia).

 

[Keysersoze]

Another.. crazy conspiracy thread....I am getting tired of these now.

 

[Zyxius]

March 15, 2008

Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita of the Democratic Party of Japan, a member of the House of Councillors in the Diet of Japan

VIDEO: Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita Speaks at 9/11 Truth Conference in Sydney (27 Mins)
[video=google;-7607824514419322408]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7607824514419322408&hl=en[/video]

Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita of the Democratic Party of Japan, a member of the House of Councillors in the Diet of Japan (national legislature), spoke at the 9/11 Truth conference in Sydney today.

Mr Fujita is the single most important person to step forward to ask hard questions about 9/11 and the “War on Terror” this year.

Although the international conference is taking place in the centre of Sydney a stone's throw away from Sydney parliamentarians, not a single Australian MP is in attendance at this important event.

Organizers of the conference had hoped that his attendance may encourage Australian Parliamentarians to examine the provably false official 9/11 conspiracy theory. He will be in attendance on the 15th (Sat) and 16th (Sun) and will make a short address on both days.

Australian media also failed to show up to the conference, despite excellent facilities and the importance of this event to Australians who are embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq and currently conducting "cyber war games" with the Americans.

Hundreds of Australian citizens and international visitors are gathering over the weekend for the conference which is open to all and taking place at the prestigious Tattersall Club at 181 Elizabeth Street in Central Sydney, having been opened by a traditional Australian indigenous welcome speech given by Dharawal Man Les Bursill.

Mr Yukihisa Fujita spoke on several issues of interest to Australia and Japan however there is a total white-out by the controlled Australian media in coverage of this event, with millions due to celebrate St Patricks day in the park opposite the conference center and fears that Australians will become aware of the falsehood of the official stories of 9/11 and the so-called 'War on Terror.'

Mr Fujita told our reporter that MP's at first know that something is amiss but have only parts of the picture and so lack the confidence to speak out or ask the right questions. However, once critical mass is reached via research and having sufficient information to hand, politicians can come onside. He has succeeded in alerting many Japanese politicians to the 9/11 cover up.

He called upon the 9/11 Truth movement to extend beyond the Internet to the masses and that the showing of films in public concerning 9/11 will create the mass awareness of the problem that several governments have concealed the realities of September 11, 2001.

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga has revealed that most intelligence agencies are aware of the inside involvement in the events of 9/11. Mr Fujita revealed he had met Mr Meacher the former British environment minister who was sacked by Blair for coming out and stating that 9/11 was a cover-up.

He said we may be coming to a stage where the scholars of physics such as those who have presented at this conference have been able to coordinate, but "politicians have not been able to coordinate ourselves." He called for a network of politicians and revealed that there is an idea of politicians to request the United Nations to conduct an investigation.

"Since my arrival this morning I was asked why Australian MP's have not shown interest. Quite a few must know some fragments of information but they may not have enough to stand up." He said that if maybe a bit of information reaches one or two MP's and they have sufficient information and feel secure or have enough to stand up, questions could be raised in parliament.

One MP told him that when he saw the building collapsing he thought it looked like a demolition but did not dare ask about it. He introduced a Japanese collegue in Victoria who has been so active in talking to people about to inform them about the 9/11 Truth. He expressed his appreciation to her, Chihaya, for her efforts to have this important video which is available on YouTube, translated into English, which enabled others to translate this into French, German, Spanish, Italian and Slovak. He also showed a copy of a book written by another Japanese 9/11 Truther, Akira Dojimaru, who resides in Spain, on the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.

At the end of his speech Mr Fujitu rceived a standing ovation which showed immense appreciation and respects of the Australian citizens toward this sole politician who had travelled from far to deliver the message from Japan, whilst local Australian politicians had not bothered to even send a single message of support.

 

[Zyxius]

Meacher: terrorism a pretext for conquest British official charges US "stood down" on 9/11

British official charges US “stood down” on 9/11
By Bill Vann
8 September 2003

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

A senior member of the ruling British Labour Party has charged that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and allowed them to take place in order to further longstanding plans for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Michael Meacher, who until he was removed in a cabinet reshuffle last June served as Blair’s environment minister, wrote an article published in the September 6 issue of the Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html] entitled “The war on terrorism is bogus: the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination.”

Citing the failure of the US military and intelligence apparatus to either act on numerous warnings of impending attacks or to respond in timely manner when four passenger airliners were hijacked simultaneously on September 11 itself, Meacher writes: “Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding or being ignorant of the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority?”

The article prompted an angry response from the US Embassy in London, which issued a statement declaring that Meacher’s “assertions that the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible.”

For its part, major US media outlets blacked out any reference to Meacher’s explosive charges.

The claim that Meacher is not “serious or credible” has no foundation. He is not a back-bench maverick or a member of what the right-wing British press likes to refer to as the “loony left.” On the contrary, he was the Labour Party’s most experienced cabinet minister, having served in Parliament for 33 years, holding various cabinet posts going back to the Wilson and Callaghan administrations in the 1970s. He served in Blair’s cabinet as environment minister for six years until he was removed in June amid the mounting crisis of the Labour government over the Iraq war. He played a prominent role in the negotiation of the Kyoto accords on the environment and was long considered a contender for the position of Labour Party leader.

That someone with these political connections charges in print that elements within the US administration knew that a terrorist attack was coming on September 11 and allowed it to happen to further their war plans represents an extremely dangerous development for the Bush White House. He speaks not just for himself. The thesis he advances is indicative of what is assumed and is being said behind the scenes among much wider circles within the sole major government to have backed Washington in its invasion of Iraq.

It is doubtless that the article was motivated by the deepening crisis of the Blair government itself over the exposure of the lies it used to promote the Iraq war. With continuing revelations from within the government’s own intelligence agencies about the fabrication of evidence against Iraq, recent polls have shown a majority of Britons in favor of Blair’s resignation.

The questions Meacher raises have never been answered by anyone in the US government. On the eve of the second anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the American public knows almost nothing more about what happened that day—and how it was allowed to happen—than it knew two years ago. The Bush White House has made every effort to derail or stonewall any independent investigation into these tragic events. To this day, no one has explained how suspected terrorists, under the surveillance of the FBI and the CIA, were allowed to enter the US, commandeer commercial aircraft and fly them unhindered until striking their targets.

Meacher’s article pursues many of the same themes that have been raised over the past two years by the World Socialist Web Site concerning the way the September 11 events were seized upon by the Bush government to drive forward its longstanding plans for military aggression, as well as the ample evidence that the government was repeatedly warned about the impending attacks, yet failed to take even routine actions to counter them.

Meacher rejects the official explanation that the successive US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq represented Washington’s response to the attacks on the Pentagon and New York City’s Twin Towers, declaring, “The truth may be a great deal murkier.”

He begins by citing a document issued in 2000 by the right-wing Washington think tank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an outfit that served as the Republican administration’s national security establishment-in-waiting until its ideas could be implemented following the installation of Bush as president in 2001.

Entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” the central plans of this document were incorporated directly into Bush’s “National Security Strategy of the United States” issued in September 2001, which advanced the strategy of “preventive war.”

Describing the document as a “blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana,” Meacher writes: “The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says ‘while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

The document, he notes, includes the warning that it would be difficult to win public support for a military campaign to transform the US into “tomorrow’s dominant force” without “some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” With September 11, the administration had just such an event: “The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the ‘go’ button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.”

Having established the political motive for welcoming some form of terrorist provocation on US soil, Meacher goes on to raise substantive questions about the official US response to the ample warnings of impending acts of terrorism as well as to the attacks themselves. He carefully documents each of his charges with specific references to reports that appeared in the mainstream media.

“First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11,” writes the British Parliament member. “It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16, 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.”

Against the Bush administration’s repeated claims that no one had ever contemplated the use of hijacked airplanes to carry out terrorist attacks, Meacher cites 1996 and 1999 intelligence reports that warned precisely of such a threat.

He also raises the question of whether US intelligence had undisclosed connections with those alleged to have organized the hijacking, dating back to the war against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. “Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia,” Meacher writes. “Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA has been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in conjunction with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6, 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15, 2001).”

The British Labourite points to the well-known decision of the FBI in Washington to suppress an investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui (now dubbed the 20th hijacker by US prosecutors) despite a warning from a local agent that he could be part of a plot to crash a plane into the Twin Towers.

Meacher goes on to review the unexplained delay in US air security responding to the hijackings: “The first hijacking was suspected not later than 8:20 a.m., and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:06 a.m.,” he writes. “Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, Aug. 13, 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.”

All of which leads Meacher to pose his question: who ordered the US national security apparatus to “stand down”?

He further points to extensive evidence of the relative US indifference to pursuing Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, quoting one US official as saying that his capture could result in a “premature collapse of our international effort.”

Meacher argues that Washington’s “‘war on terrorism’ is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives.”

“In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action,” he writes. “The evidence is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11.” He points to a September 18, 2001 BBC report that US officials warned Pakistan in July 2001—two months before the terrorist attacks—that US “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.”

Meacher comments: “Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan, in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance.” He suggests that there is a precedent for the Bush administration’s inaction on September 11 in the similar failure of President Roosevelt to heed warnings of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, an event that fueled sufficient public outrage to achieve his administration’s goal of bringing the US into the Second World War.

The former environment minister argues that motivation for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was to seize control of strategic sources of oil and natural gas in both the Caspian and Persian Gulf regions.

Meacher concludes: “The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the ‘global war on terrorism’ has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda—the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy?”

None of the information provided by Meacher is new; it has merely been concealed from the broad public. Increasingly bitter divisions within ruling circles, both in the US and Britain, have brought it to the surface.

The former cabinet minister speaks for sections of the British ruling elite who support distancing London’s policy from that of the Bush administration. Their hand has been considerably strengthened by the mounting catastrophe confronting the US military occupation of Iraq as well as the deep crisis facing Blair, the principal proponent of unconditional British support for US strategic aims.

The unraveling of the Blair government’s fabrication of evidence about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has opened a Pandora’s box for the Bush administration. The exposure of one set of lies has opened the door to renewed questions about all of the conspiracies and provocations carried out by the gang of criminals that have seized control of the White House.

The Bush administration has exploited the tragedy of September 11 as the justification for launching two wars in the space of a year and a half and for carrying out far-reaching attacks on both the democratic rights and social conditions of the American people. At the same time it has acted ruthlessly to suppress any serious investigation into the 9/11 attacks. As the Meacher article indicates, the administration’s ability to continue this cover-up is being fatally undermined by its own growing political crisis.

 

[Zyxius]

Another.. crazy conspiracy thread....I am getting tired of these now.

Considering that you are a moderator....one would expect comment of substance from you at least. On what basis do you say any of this is untrue?

 

[Keysersoze]

Considering that you are a moderator....one would expect comment of substance from you at least. On what basis do you say any of this is untrue?

Zyxius I have been on here a long time and you are not the first person to have posted such threads. I have in the past comprehensively taken apart the theories you have again re-posted. At this point I feel I know how Sisyphus felt pushing that big rock up the damn hill.

Use Occams razor it helps quite a bit in these type of things.

 

[Zyxius]

Here is a list of more than 100 Prominent US government officials from military, intelligence, congress, senate, and all other walks of life who question the official version of 9/11.

Government, Military, Intelligence Officials Question 9/11 Commission Report

You may feel that you have debunked all the people listed on this thread so far...but you'll have to excuse me if I'm not buying. And by the way......I believe simply that 9/11 was a false flag operation and I have not presented any theories beyond that....this thread is showing all world leaders and respected people who question the official version of 9/11. You may disagree...but they still question it.

 

[Keysersoze]

Here is a list of more than 100 Prominent US government officials from military, intelligence, congress, senate, and all other walks of life who question the official version of 9/11.

Government, Military, Intelligence Officials Question 9/11 Commission Report

You may feel that you have debunked all the people listed on this thread so far...but you'll have to excuse me if I'm not buying. And by the way...I am not presenting any theory....this thread is showing all world leaders and respected people who question the official version of 9/11. You may disagree...but they still question it.

A)Since you have obviously gone into enough effort to post all of these I have the inkling that you are pretty much presenting something you believe.
you're "not buying" because to quote the x-files "You want to believe"

B)There may well be aspects that are not transparent but I think there tends to be "conspiracy mania" whenever events like this happen. In fact Psychologists liken it to a type of mass hysteria. Everything from Princess Diana (drunk driver/car crash) to Aliens at Roswell. Use Occams razor and you will find that it is a lot simpler.

c)I have gone through the list you mentioned and frankly the majority of the people there are looking at failures of the intelligence services to prevent the attack and also the manipulation of the attack to justify the war in Iraq. Also a lot of them are talking about the processes in the commission being flawed. Sorry but your smoking gun is looking like a damp squib.

But hey I am wasting my time even debating it As you and many more like you "want to believe"

 

[Zyxius]

B)There may well be aspects that are not transparent but I think there tends to be "conspiracy mania" whenever events like this happen. In fact Psychologists liken it to a type of mass hysteria. Everything from Princess Diana (drunk driver/car crash) to Aliens at Roswell. Use Occams razor and you will find that it is a lot simpler.

c)I have gone through the list you mentioned and frankly the majority of the people there are looking at failures of the intelligence services to prevent the attack and also the manipulation of the attack to justify the war in Iraq. Also a lot of them are talking about the processes in the commission being flawed. Sorry but your smoking gun is looking like a damp squib.

But hey I am wasting my time even debating it As you and many more like you "want to believe"

Actually you're not debating because you've really not presented any facts...you've just made comments.

You keep saying "use Occam's razor" when you could just a easily say, "the simplest explanation is the most likely"...did you just take a class where you learnt this? Cause you seem to be wanting to demonstrate knowledge...but repeating the same thing ain't gonna do it.

Most of these articles are about leaders who say either:

1. 9/11 was an inside job
2. Bush knew in advance
3. The investigation is a cover up
4. The investigation needs to be done again because the official story doesn't add up

Its a cheap trick to avoid presenting facts and going into the psycho babble. The other cheap trick is to say "there are no facts to discuss". You're the one who "Wants to believe"...thats no argument...so there is no point throwing that out again and again. You are a moderator so I expect a better level from you at least...if you don't have some facts or substance....why bother just throwing comments around?

 

[Keysersoze]

Actually you're not debating because you've really not presented any facts...you've just made comments.

You keep saying "use Occam's razor" when you could just a easily say, "the simplest explanation is the most likely"...did you just take a class where you learnt this? Cause you seem to be wanting to demonstrate knowledge...but repeating the same thing ain't gonna do it.

Its a cheap trick to avoid presenting facts and going into the psycho babble. The other cheap trick is to say "there are no facts to discuss". You're the one who "Wants to believe"...thats no argument...so there is no point throwing that out again and again. You are a moderator so I expect a better level from you at least...if you don't have some facts or substance....why bother just throwing comments around?

You have not thrown any "facts" out there either Zyxius. Merely conjecture that fits your belief. You put your "belief" up there and I will counter it. Since you are the beleiver in the conspiracy place your views on ere for scrutiny and I will discuss it. Don't hide behind "i am merely presenting these".

As for my being a moderator I am allowed to disagree with you Zyxius. At no time was I required to sign a clause agreeing with you at all times.

 

[Zyxius]

You have not thrown any "facts" out there either Zyxius. Merely conjecture that fits your belief. You put your "belief" up there and I will counter it. Since you are the beleiver in the conspiracy place your views on ere for scrutiny and I will discuss it. Don't hide behind "i am merely presenting these".

As for my being a moderator I am allowed to disagree with you Zyxius. At no time was I required to sign a clause agreeing with you at all times.

You dont have to agree....but I would expect that the rules of engagement should fit the level of the individual and in my view that would mean that rather than just call it crazy...you would pick an article and say something about that based on what was in it. The title of the thread is "World Leaders who question the official story of 9/11" ...therefore I have provided articles with the opinions and quotes of those leaders...not my own. If you want to debate anything...pick an article...pick something and say something based on that rather than turn to me and say "the onus is on you". For what? I think its rather simple what's expected here...no?

 

[niaz]

Quote


Most of these articles are about leaders who say either:

1. 9/11 was an inside job
2. Bush knew in advance
3. The investigation is a cover up
4. The investigation needs to be done again because the official story doesn't add up

Unquote.

Regret to say that most world leaders are politicians; they do and say many things mainly to gain political leverage thus should not be believed.

It so happens that I was visiting my sister in Chicago in September 2001 when this event happened. I saw a lot of footage on TV.

This event has been investigated thoroughly by the 9/11 commission. One thing is definite; four commercial airliners were hijacked and nearly three thousand people lost their lives. Obviously, for people to hijack 4 airliners at the same time must involve some security lapse. However when; no one comes out that says so openly, but thru innuendos it is implied that it was an inside job and somehow US govt did it to their own people or Jews did it; I am aghast.

To my simple mind such accusations have been dreamt up by conspiracy theorists. Whenever I confronted with this kind of argument; all I say in reply that I think you are totally wrong but you have a right to your point of view and I just shut up.