Sept 11th: What You Ought Not to Know

[Nbadan]

http://www.infowars.net/pictures/feb07/280207Sept11.jpg
Take a few minutes to remember the Heros today

September 11: What You "Ought Not To Know"
by Greg Palast


September 10, 2007- On November 9, 2001, when you could still choke on the dust in the air near Ground Zero, BBC Television received a call in London from a top-level US intelligence agent. He was not happy. Shortly after George W. Bush took office, he told us reluctantly, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the FBI, “were told to back off the Saudis.”

We knew that. In the newsroom, we had a document already in hand, marked, “SECRET” across the top and “” - meaning this was a national security matter.

The secret memo released agents to hunt down two members of the bin Laden family operating a “suspected terrorist organization” in the USA. It was dated September 13, 2001 — two days too late for too many. What the memo indicates, corroborated by other sources, was that the agents had long wanted to question these characters … but could not until after the attack. By that time, these bin Laden birds had flown their American nest.

...

Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, let me tell you that we found no evidence — none, zero, no kidding — that George Bush knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to attack on September 11. Indeed, the grim joke at BBC is that anyone accusing George Bush of knowing anything at all must have solid evidence. This is not a story of what George Bush knew but rather of his very-unfunny ignorance. And it was not stupidity, but policy: no asking Saudis uncomfortable questions about their paying off roving packs of killers, especially when those Saudis are so generous to Bush family businesses.

Yes, Bill Clinton was also a bit too tender toward the oil men of Arabia. But this you should know: In his last year in office, Clinton sent two delegations to the Gulf to suggest that the Royal family crack down on “charitable donations” from their kingdom to the guys who blew up our embassies.

But when a failed Texas oil man took over the White House in January 2001, demands on the Saudis to cut off terror funding simply stopped.

And what about the bin Laden “suspected terrorist organization”? Called the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, the group sponsors soccer teams and summer camps in Florida. BBC obtained a video of one camp activity, a speech exhorting kids on the heroism of suicide bombings and hostage takings. While WAMY draws membership with wholesome activities, it has also acted as a cover or front, say the Dutch, Indian and Bosnian governments, for the recruitment of jihadi killers. Certainly, it was worth asking the bin Laden boys a few questions. But the FBI agents couldn’t, until it was too late.
In November 2001, when BBC ran the report on the spike of investigations of Saudi funding of terror, the Bush defenders whom we’d invited to respond on air dismissed the concerns of lower level FBI agents who’d passed over the WAMY documents. No action was taken on the group headed by the bin Ladens.

Then, in May this year, fifty FBI agents surrounded, invaded and sealed off WAMY’s Virginia office. It was like a bad scene out of the ‘Untouchables.’ The raid took place three years after our report and long after the bin Ladens had waved bye-bye. It is not surprising that the feds seized mostly empty files and a lot of soccer balls.

Why now this belated move on the bin Laden’s former operation? Why not right after the September 11 attack? This year’s FBI raid occurred just days after an Islamist terror assault in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Apparently, messin’ with the oil sheiks gets this Administration’s attention. Falling towers in New York are only for Republican convention photo ops.

The 199-I memo was passed to BBC television by the gumshoes at the National Security News Service in Washington. We authenticated it, added in our own sleuthing, then gave the FBI its say, expecting the usual, “It’s baloney, a fake.” But we didn’t get the usual response. Rather, FBI headquarters said, “There are lots of things the intelligence community knows and other people ought not to know.”

Ought not to know?

More: Greg Palast (http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-what-you-%e2%80%9cought-not-to-know%e2%80%9d/#more-1844)

[xrayzebra]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/ourfault.gif

[boutons_]

The Dems don't have the balls to go after dubya/dickhead/condi/tenet for their NatSec negligence between 20/1 and 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission Report was a white-wash, emasculated by the Exec's stonewalling and non-co-operation.

[boutons_]

consortiumnews.com

Neck Deep: The Real 9/11 Scandal

By Robert, Sam and Nat Parry
September 11, 2007

Editor’s Note: As George W. Bush tries to squeeze 16 more months of political advantage from America’s 9/11 memories, it is worth recalling how different history might have been had the Bush administration heeded intelligence warnings in the summer of 2001.

Bush’s supporters have worked mightily to foist off blame for the attacks on the Clinton administration, but the truth is that the key developments in the emergence of Osama bin Laden and his terrorist band date back to the Reagan-Bush years of the 1980s – and the missed opportunities to stop the attacks fell heavily on George W. Bush’s watch.

That reality is recalled in this excerpt from the new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush (http://www.neckdeepbook.com/):


During the lazy summer of 2001, relatively few Americans had even heard of al-Qaeda, which in Arabic means “the base.” This organization of Islamic extremists had taken shape during the CIA-supported war against the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

In the years of the late Cold War, CIA Director William J. Casey and other anti-Soviet hard-liners viewed Islamic fundamentalism as a tool to pry historically Muslim territories in the southern Soviet Union away from Moscow and its atheistic communist government.

So, besides arming a multinational force of Islamists to fight in Afghanistan, the CIA printed thousands of copies of the Koran and smuggled them into the Soviet Union.

In another trade-off for the Afghan war, the CIA looked the other way while Pakistan was developing its nuclear bomb. The CIA wanted nothing to interfere with the vital cooperation that Pakistani intelligence was providing in funneling weapons to the anti-Soviet Afghan rebels and their Islamic allies, including bin Laden.

But after the Soviets were driven from Afghanistan in 1989, many of the CIA-trained Islamist guerrillas turned their fury against other infidels encroaching on Muslim lands. The most obvious intruder was their old patron, the United States.

Bin Laden, the scion of a wealthy Saudi family which controlled much of the construction in the oil-rich kingdom, disdained the Saudi princes for their decadent ways and their reliance on the Americans for their security. The acetic and religious bin Laden grew more alienated from the Saudi power structure in 1990 when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Bin Laden despised Hussein as a secular leader of an Arab country and wanted him driven from Kuwait, but bin Laden was disgusted at the thought of non-Muslims setting up military bases near Islamic holy sites in Saudi Arabia.

He volunteered to raise an Islamic army of mujahedeen to push Hussein out of Kuwait. But the Saudi royals threw in their lot with the Americans, the British and a multinational force that succeeded in routing the Iraqi army in early 1991.

But, just as bin Laden had feared, the Americans did not dismantle their military bases in Saudi Arabia. They made them more permanent.

In the early 1990s, bin Laden moved his fledgling al-Qaeda organization to Sudan and built up an array of interrelated businesses as a framework for his political activities.

He reached out to Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia and Eritrea. Many were exiles from losing battles against the power structures in their home countries.

During this transition period, bin Laden intensified his anti-American rhetoric and issued a fatwa – or religious order – in 1992 against U.S. “occupation” of Islamic lands. U.S. intelligence began to suspect that al-Qaeda was responsible for scattered attacks against U.S. targets in the Middle East and East Africa.

Escalation

By 1996, pressure from the United States and other countries persuaded the Sudanese government to expel bin Laden and his organization. Bin Laden left Sudan on May 19, 1996, and returned to his old sanctuary in Afghanistan.

Though in a weakened position, bin Laden began reviving al-Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan, with the protection of the Pakistani intelligence services and the fundamentalist Taliban government in Kabul.

Bin Laden rebuilt his financial structure, set up training camps and forged alliances with other extremist organizations, such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad led by exile Ayman al-Zawahiri. On Feb. 23, 1998, a resurgent bin Laden issued another fatwa against the United States, specifically authorizing his followers to kill Americans whether they were civilian or military.

Five months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, al-Qaeda militants struck at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The bombing of the Nairobi embassy killed 12 Americans and 201 others.

In Dar es Salaam, 11 people died. Bin Laden declared publicly that if inciting attacks intended to drive Americans and Jews from the Islamic holy lands is a crime, “let history be a witness that I am a criminal.”

After the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, President Bill Clinton ordered heightened attention on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, looking for ways of getting the terrorist leader expelled from Afghanistan or killed.

On Aug. 20, 1998, the United States launched a missile strike against bin Laden’s Afghan base, killing about two dozen people but missing bin Laden, who was believed to have left the compound a few hours earlier.

Besides failing to kill bin Laden, Clinton earned the derision of Republicans and many Washington pundits, who accused him of a “wag-the-dog” attempt to distract attention from the scandal over his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

Millennium Plot

In the months that followed, as the U.S. government weighed additional countermoves, bin Laden’s operatives prepared for another strike inside the United States, this one to coincide with the Millennium celebrations at the end of 1999.

An intelligence report from the National Intelligence Council, which advises the President on emerging threats, warned that al-Qaeda should be expected to “retaliate in a spectacular way” for the 1998 cruise missile attack on Afghanistan.

Tipped by Jordanian intelligence on al-Qaeda’s plans, the Clinton administration ordered tightened security and got lucky when alert border guards at Port Angeles, Washington, apprehended Ahmed Rassam, who was on his way to Los Angeles to plant bombs at the international airport.

At the height of Campaign 2000, al-Qaeda took aim at another U.S. target, the destroyer USS Cole, as it docked in the port of Aden. On Oct. 12, 2000, al-Qaeda operatives piloted a small boat laden with explosives against the Cole’s hull, blasting a hole that killed 17 crew members and wounded another 40.

Back in Afghanistan, bin Laden anticipated – and desired – a retaliatory strike. He hoped to lure the United States deeper into a direct conflict with al-Qaeda, which would enhance his group’s reputation and – assuming a clumsy U.S. response – would radicalize the region’s Muslim populations.

Bin Laden evacuated al-Qaeda’s compound at the Kandahar airport and fled into the desert near Kabul and then to hideouts in Khowst and Jalalabad before returning to Kandahar where he alternated sleeping among a half dozen residences.

But lacking hard evidence proving who was behind the Cole bombing, Clinton didn’t order a retaliatory strike. Only during the transition to the Bush presidency did U.S. intelligence reach a conclusion that the attack was “a full-fledged al-Qaeda operation” under the direct supervision of bin Laden.

However, Clinton left a decision on what do next up to the incoming administration – and it didn’t agree with Clinton’s assessment that al-Qaeda ranked at the top of the U.S. threat list. From his opening days in office, Bush rebuffed recommendations from almost anyone who shared Clinton’s anxiety about terrorism.

On Jan. 31, 2001, just 11 days after Bush’s Inauguration, a bipartisan terrorism commission headed by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman unveiled its final report, bluntly warning that urgent steps were needed to prevent a terrorist attack on U.S. cities.

“States, terrorists and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction, and some will use them,” the report said. “Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.” Hart specifically noted that the nation was vulnerable to “a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building.”

The 9/11 Commission later wrote, “in February 2001, a source reported that an individual whom he identified as the big instructor (probably a reference to bin Laden) complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked. According to the source, bin Laden wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not he would launch something bigger.”

By then, Muhamed Atta and other al-Qaeda operatives were moving into position for their next deadly operation. From safe houses in California and Florida, they enrolled in American flight schools and took lessons on how to fly commercial jetliners.

When congressional hearings on the Hart-Rudman findings were set for early May 2001, the Bush administration intervened to stop them. The presumed reasoning was that the Bush administration didn’t have much to show either in terms of accomplishments or plans of its own.

Instead of embracing the Hart-Rudman findings and getting to work on the recommendations, Bush set up a White House committee, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, to examine the issue again and submit a report in fall 2001.

“The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring,” said former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Alarm Bells

By late spring 2001, other alarm bells were ringing, frequently and loudly. Credible evidence of an impending attack began pouring in to U.S. intelligence agencies.

“It all came together in the third week of June,” said Richard Clarke, who was the White House coordinator for counterterrorism. “The CIA’s view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks.”

In late June, CIA Director George Tenet was reported “nearly frantic” about the likelihood of an al-Qaeda attack. He was described as running around “with his hair on fire” because the warning system was “blinking red.”

On June 28, a written intelligence summary to Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice warned that “it is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.”

On July 5, 2001, at a meeting in the White House Situation Room, counterterrorism chief Clarke told officials from a dozen federal agencies that “something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.”

But instead of sparking an intensified administration reaction to the danger, the flickering light of White House interest in the terror threat continued to sputter.

By July 10, senior CIA counterterrorism officials, including Cofer Black, had collected a body of intelligence that they presented to Director Tenet.

“The briefing gave me literally made my hair stand on end,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “When he was through, I picked up the big white secure phone on the left side of my desk – the one with a direct line to Condi Rice – and told her that I needed to see her immediately to provide an update on the al-Qa’ida threat.”

After reaching the White House, a CIA briefer, identified in Tenet’s book only as Rich B., started his presentation by saying: “There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!”

Rich B. then displayed a chart showing “seven specific pieces of intelligence gathered over the past 24 hours, all of them predicting an imminent attack,” Tenet wrote. The briefer presented another chart with “the more chilling statements we had in our possession through intelligence.”

These comments included a mid-June statement by Osama bin Laden to trainees about an attack in the near future; talk about decisive acts and a “big event”; and fresh intelligence about predictions of “a stunning turn of events in the weeks ahead,” Tenet wrote.

Rich B. told Rice that the attack will be “spectacular” and designed to inflict heavy casualties against U.S. targets.

“Attack preparations have been made,” Rich B. said about al-Qaeda’s plans. “Multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible, and they will occur with little or no warning.”

When Rice asked what needed to be done, the CIA’s Black responded, “This country needs to go on a war footing now.” The CIA officials sought approval for broad covert-action authority that had been languishing since March, Tenet wrote.

Despite the July 10 briefing, other senior Bush administration officials continued to pooh-pooh the seriousness of the al-Qaeda threat. Two leading neoconservatives at the Pentagon – Stephen Cambone and Paul Wolfowitz – suggested that the CIA might be falling for a disinformation campaign, Tenet recalled.

But the evidence of an impending attack continued to pour in. At one CIA meeting in late July, Tenet wrote that Rich B. told senior officials bluntly, “they’re coming here,” a declaration that was followed by stunned silence.

Stem Cells

Through the sweltering heat of July, Bush turned his attention to an issue dear to the hearts of his right-wing base, the use of human embryos in stem-cell research.

Medical scientists felt stem cells promised potential cures for debilitating and life-threatening injuries and illnesses, from spinal damage to Alzheimer’s disease. Yet, despite this promise, the Christian Right objected on moral grounds to the extraction of cells from embryos, even if they were destined for destruction as waste at fertility clinics.

Bush also was eyeing a month-long vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

While Atta and his team made final preparations, the U.S. press corps also missed the drama playing out inside the U.S. intelligence agencies. The hot stories that steamy summer were shark attacks and the mystery of a missing Capitol Hill intern Chandra Levy, who’d had an affair with Representative Gary Condit, a California Democrat.

The news media pretended that its obsession with Levy’s disappearance was a heartfelt concern to help her parents find their missing daughter; the sexual gossip about Levy and Condit proved to be a fortuitous byproduct.

Yet, as cable news played the Chandra Levy case 24/7, a far more significant life-or-death drama was playing out inside the FBI and CIA.

At the FBI’s Phoenix field office, FBI agent Kenneth Williams noted the curious fact that suspected followers of bin Laden were learning to fly airplanes at schools inside the United States.

Citing “an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” attending American flight schools, Williams sent a July 10, 2001, memo to FBI headquarters warning of the “possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Laden” to send student pilots to the United States. But the memo produced no follow-up.

National FBI officials seemed paralyzed at the thought of taking proactive measures. Instead they concentrated on what to do after an anticipated terror attack.

Then-acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard later told the 9/11 Commission that he discussed the intelligence threat reports with FBI special agents from around the country in a conference call on July 19, 2001. But Pickard said the focus was on having “evidence response teams” ready to respond quickly in the event of an attack.

CIA officials encountered similar foot-dragging at the White House. At least two officials in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center were so apoplectic about the blasé reactions from the Bush administration that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns.

Instead, the CIA hierarchy made one more stab at startling Bush into action.

Blunt Warning

On Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA dispatched senior analysts to brief Bush near the beginning of his month-long vacation at his Crawford ranch. They carried a highly classified report with the blunt title “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”

This Presidential Daily Brief summarized the history of bin Laden’s interest in launching attacks inside the United States and ended with a carefully phrased warning about recent intelligence threat data:

“FBI information … indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”

Bush was not pleased by the CIA’s intrusion on his vacation nor with the report’s lack of specific targets and dates. He glared at the CIA briefer and snapped, “All right, you’ve covered your ass,” according to an account in author Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine, which relied heavily on senior CIA officials.

Putting the CIA’s warning in the back of his mind and ordering no special response, Bush returned to a vacation of fishing, clearing brush and working on a speech about stem-cell research.

Yet, inside the FBI as the month wore on, there were more warnings that went unheeded. FBI agents in Minneapolis arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in August because of his suspicious behavior in trying to learn to fly commercial jetliners when he lacked even rudimentary skills.

FBI agent Harry Samit, who interrogated Moussaoui, sent 70 warnings to his superiors about suspicions that the al-Qaeda operative had been taking flight training in Minnesota because he was planning to hijack a plane for a terrorist operation.

But FBI officials in Washington showed “criminal negligence” in blocking requests for a search warrant on Moussaoui’s computer or taking other preventive action, Samit testified more than four years later at Moussaoui’s criminal trial.

Another big part of the problem was the lack of urgency at the top. Counterterrorism coordinator Clarke said the 9/11 attacks might have been averted if Bush had shown some initiative in “shaking the trees” by having high-level officials from the FBI, CIA, Customs and other federal agencies go back to their bureaucracies and demand any information about the terrorist threat.

If they had, they might well have found the memos from the FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota.

Clarke contrasted President Clinton’s urgency over the intelligence warnings that preceded the Millennium events with the lackadaisical approach of Bush and his national security team.

“In December 1999, we received intelligence reports that there were going to be major al-Qaeda attacks,” Clarke said in an interview. “President Clinton asked his national security adviser Sandy Berger to hold daily meetings with the attorney general, the FBI director, the CIA director and stop the attacks.

“Every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information. You know, when you know the United States is going to be attacked, the top people in the United States government ought to be working hands-on to prevent it and working together.

“Now, contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the President ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No.”

In his book, Against All Enemies, Clarke offered other examples of pre-9/11 mistakes by the Bush administration, including a downgrading in importance of the counterterrorism office, a shifting of budget priorities, an obsession with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and an emphasis on conservative ideological issues, such as Reagan’s missile defense program.

A more hierarchical White House structure also insulated Bush from direct contact with mid-level national security officials who had specialized on the al-Qaeda issue.

Possible Prevention

The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission – New Jersey’s former Republican Governor Thomas Kean and former Democratic Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton, respectively – agreed that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

“The whole story might have been different,” Kean said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on April 4, 2004. Kean cited a string of law-enforcement blunders including the “lack of coordination within the FBI” and the FBI’s failure to understand the significance of Moussaoui’s arrest in August while training to fly passenger jets.

Yet, as the clock ticked down to 9/11, the Bush administration continued to have other priorities. On Aug. 9, Bush gave a nationally televised speech on stem cells, delivering his judgment permitting federal funding for research on 60 preexisting stem-cell lines, but barring government support for work on any other lines of stem cells that would be derived from human embryos.

Scientists complained that the existing lines were too tainted with mouse cells and too limited to be of much value. But the national news media mostly hailed Bush’s split decision as “Solomon-like” and proof that he had greater gravitas than his critics would acknowledge.

CIA Director Tenet said he made one last push to focus Bush on the impending terrorism crisis, but the encounter veered off into meaningless small talk.

“A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,” where Tenet had grown up.

[b] Bush and his senior advisers continued their hostility toward what they viewed as the old Clinton phobia about terrorism and this little-known group called al-Qaeda.

On Sept. 6, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto of a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, seeking to transfer money from strategic missile defense to counterterrorism.

Also on Sept. 6, former Sen. Hart was still trying to galvanize the Bush administration into showing some urgency about the terrorist threat. Hart met with Condoleezza Rice and urged the White House to move faster. Rice agreed to pass on Hart’s concerns to higher-ups.

http://consortiumnews.com/2007/091107.html

=============

The reason the Repugs and right blame Clinton for 9/11 is that they know dubya and dickhead are truly guilty of NatSec negligence and full responsibililty for the not stopping 9/11.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya

[xrayzebra]

boutons, doubt if you will answer this question, but here goes
anyhow.

Who do you think should be President?

What is your vision of our country.

Think you hand one or both of those questions without getting
into the gutter?

[ChumpDumper]

Who do you think should be President?Whoever appoints the fewest neocons to their cabinet.

[xrayzebra]

Whoever appoints the fewest neocons to their cabinet.

You ask a question of boutons and damn look who pops up
but his boy, ChumpDumper, the original chump. Hmmmm
one and the same.

[ChumpDumper]

Not at all the same. Only an idiot would think that -- oh...right....

Are you saying you want more neocons?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not at all the same. Only an idiot would think that -- oh...right....

Are you saying you want more neocons?


YESS..more unecessary wars.. :toast

[xrayzebra]

Not at all the same. Only an idiot would think that -- oh...right....

Are you saying you want more neocons?

And you fit the bill! As a boutons.

[ChumpDumper]

And you fit the bill!I don't think I'm boutons.

Do you want more neocons?

[Yonivore]

JONAH GOLDBERG ON 9/11 SIX YEARS LATER (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTI5YjBlZmZlZTFlNmUwODBiZGY0OTBkMmM5YjNhOTg=):


If I had said in late 2001, with bodies still being pulled from the wreckage, anthrax flying through the mail, pandemonium reigning at the airports, and bombs falling on Kabul, that by ‘07 leading Democrats would be ridiculing the idea of the war on terror as a bumper sticker, I’d have been thought mad. If I’d predicted that a third of Democrats would be telling pollsters that Bush knew in advance about 9/11, and that the eleventh of September would become an innocuous date for parental get-togethers to talk about potty-training strategies and phonics for preschoolers, people would have thought I was crazy. . . .

But it’s important to remember that from the outset, the media took it as their sworn duty to keep Americans from getting too riled up about 9/11. I wrote a column about it back in March of 2002. Back then the news networks especially saw it as imperative that we not let our outrage get out of hand. I can understand the sentiment, but it’s worth noting that such sentiments vanished entirely during hurricane Katrina. After 9/11, the press withheld objectively accurate and factual images from the public, lest the rubes get too riled up. After Katrina, the press endlessly recycled inaccurate and exaggerated information in order to keep everyone upset. The difference speaks volumes.
Indeed it does.

[ChumpDumper]

“So I don’t know where [Osama Bin Laden] is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.” [President Bush, 3/13/02]

[ChumpDumper]

I guess it comes down to whether you let the media or the blogs or the president tell you how much to care.

[xrayzebra]

I don't think I'm boutons.

Do you want more neocons?


What are neocoms, in your estimation?

[ChumpDumper]

If you want a definition, this is as good as any:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neocon

The neocons or converts thereof in the last administration include but are not limited to: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle.

I'm not sure I can actually count Bush, as he is so intellectually incurious I doubt he could even be bothered to understand the philosophy. His Saddam-obsession may have simply dovetailed with the desires of the neocons.

[xrayzebra]

The neocons or converts thereof in the last administration include but are not limited to: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle.

I'm not sure I can actually count Bush, as he is so intellectually incurious I doubt he could even be bothered to understand the philosophy. His Sddam-obsession may have simply dovetailed with the desires of the neocons.

You give me peoples names, but who are neocons? I want
your definition in your words.

[ChumpDumper]

In my words? They are a group of self-anointed elites who believe the population of the US has to think it is under a constant existential threat to remain strong, and exaggerating the threat of any potential enemy is a good and desirable thing. Wars can be started for good reasons or no reason at all, but the exercise and expansion of US power is what's really important.

[xrayzebra]

In my words? They are a group of self-anointed elites who believe the population of the US has to think it is under a constant existential threat to remain strong, and exaggerating the threat of any potential enemy is a good and desirable thing. Wars can be started for good reasons or no reason at all, but the exercise and expansion of US power is what's really important.

Okay, now, who uses the word "crisis" more in their
talking points?

Who is always telling us what we must, should and will
do in our daily lives? Certainly not the Conservatives.

And are you saying that we are not under a daily threat
by the terrorist in this world?

[BradLohaus]

A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These liberals drifted toward conservatism: thus they are new (neo) conservatives. They favor an aggressive unilateral U.S. foreign policy. They generally believe that elites protect democracy from mob rule. Sometimes the spelling is "neoconservative."

That's too funny. I also like the wikipedia page on the neocons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon

Hey XRay: Were you a liberal during the Cold War? That might explain why you think Ron Paul sounds like a dem-o-crap. :)

[johnsmith]

I picture Xray and Chumpdumper as the same guys from "Grumpy Old Men".

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, now, who uses the word "crisis" more in their
talking points? Are you kidding me? Who said we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?


Who is always telling us what we must, should and will
do in our daily lives? Certainly not the Conservatives.Get it straight. We aren't talking about conservatives.


And are you saying that we are not under a daily threat
by the terrorist in this world?Are you saying we were under a daily threat from Saddam Hussein?

Daily?

Every day?

[xrayzebra]

Hey XRay: Were you a liberal during the Cold War? That might explain why you think Ron Paul sounds like a dem-o-crap. :)

Actually during most of the cold war I so damn busy making
a living I didn't think of politics too much. And I lived
overseas during a good portion of the cold war. And
that is spelled "dimm". But I was in some countries that
were socialist and I didn't like that form of government too
much. By the way, I really don't take myself that
serious. I like a little humor in life and sometimes I
think some on this board take themselves a little too
serious.

One thing I did find during my earlier years is that
people are much the same everywhere, with one
exception, and that is the ME. Their thinking process is
all together different that ours. That is not say they are
wrong, just different. And it was hard to learn that, but
I had some of them working for me, so I had to learn
or not accomplish what I was suppose to.

[xrayzebra]

Are you kidding me? Who said we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?

Get it straight. We aren't talking about conservatives.

Are you saying we were under a daily threat from Saddam Hussein?

Daily?

Every day?

Not even worth trying to answer.

[clambake]

One thing I did find during my earlier years is that
people are much the same everywhere, with one
exception, and that is the ME. Their thinking process is
all together different that ours. That is not say they are
wrong, just different. And it was hard to learn that, but
I had some of them working for me, so I had to learn
or not accomplish what I was suppose to.
Where did you form this opinion?

Was it in that brothel where you visited? You know, where they held women as sex slaves?

[johnsmith]

Where did you form this opinion?

Was it in that brothel where you visited? You know, where they held women as sex slaves?


Dude, get over it.

[xrayzebra]

Where did you form this opinion?

Was it in that brothel where you visited? You know, where they held women as sex slaves?


Typical response from a dumbass liberal. And teenage
poster.

[ChumpDumper]

Not even worth trying to answer.Don't be a pussy. Answer the question.

Are you saying we were under a daily threat from Saddam Hussein?

[johnsmith]

Don't be a pussy. Answer the question.


Yeah, be tough like Chump.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, be tough like Chump.
:blah

[clambake]

Typical response from a dumbass liberal. And teenage
poster.
Do you think, now, it was a bad idea to brag about your escapades?

I only brought it up to use as ridicule.

The idea that people should accept your opinions as valid concepts. what a joke.

[johnsmith]

The idea that people should accept your opinions as valid concepts. what a joke.


Pot, meet kettle.

[clambake]

Pot, meet kettle.


Should I tell my family member they're being fired tomorrow? I'm too big a pussy to decide.

[johnsmith]

You sure live in the past around here a lot dude.

Get a life.

Guess how many of your past posts I can recall? That's right, none.

I do remember your kids being mutants though.

[johnsmith]

And your wife being a lagoon creature.

[clambake]

You sure live in the past around here a lot dude.

Get a life.

Guess how many of your past posts I can recall? That's right, none.

I do remember your kids being mutants though.
wow, i just got slapped down by a guy (and i use that term loosely) that's afraid of his boss.

[johnsmith]

wow, i just got slapped down by a guy (and i use that term loosely) that's afraid of his boss.


See, you can't even remember stuff correctly. I didn't work for the guy that fired him.

Is this going to be like the time you rambled off an assumption about Halliburton and then when I posted the actual truth and made you look like an idiot you just stopped posting completely in that thread?


See, I remember stuff too.

By the way, how are karate classes for you going? You a black-belt in douche bag yet?

[clambake]

You don't know jackshit about haliburton. Did you know haliburton was a primary builder of bunkers in belfast?

How long do you think people take lessons?

Should I give you time to post in the club for help?

[johnsmith]

You don't know jackshit about haliburton. Did you know haliburton was a primary builder of bunkers in belfast?

How long do you think people take lessons?

Should I give you time to post in the club for help?


Ok, I don't know jackshit about Haliburton, but then you don't know jackshit about KBR, which is pretty much what you were discussing when you were talking out of your ass during that thread.


I don't really care ho long people take lessons, and for that matter, I would imagine you were able to become a master of douche baggery within a half hour or so.

No need for me to post in the club to confirm what I already know and that is that you're an idiot.

Is your wife ready for her feeding yet?

[johnsmith]

Sucks when someone in the political forum trolls you instead of you doing it to everyone else doesn't it?

[boutons_]

"Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle"

Don't forget Wolfowitz, Libby, and Addington (dickhead's current hatchet man)

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

[clambake]

brown and root? big deal, large construction firm. who doesn't know that?

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't forget Wolfowitz, but thanks for the others.

[Nbadan]

...don't forget Richard Armitage...the Valarie Plame scap-goat....

[ChumpDumper]

He's more of a realist.

[Yonivore]

...don't forget Richard Armitage...the Valarie Plame scap-goat....
I'm sorry, refresh my memory...exactly what happened to Richard Armitage?

[ChumpDumper]

He cooperated with the investigators.

[Nbadan]

...or he forgot to lie....

[ChumpDumper]

Armitage was repeating gossip from a memo he got which IIRC said nothing about Plame's covert status, so he had some plausible deniability.

At any rate, I would have been glad to have a cabinet full of Richard Armitages as opposed to the abovementioned neocons.

[Nbadan]

Armitage signed the 1990's PNAC letter to President Clinton encouraging him to invade Iraq...

[ChumpDumper]

His tune must have changed dramatically after 9/11. Almost the converse of Cheney. But I could allow that being a reflection of his boss.

[Nbadan]

Well, yeah, the Neocons needed someone to keep an eye on Colin Powell, who was leading the diplimatic-front battles then.....

[ChumpDumper]

On closer inspection, I believe you have Richard Armitage confused with Richard Martinage, who actually did take part in the PNAC project.

[Nbadan]

No I believe you are mistaken..

January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:


We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey

PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks, I was reading off the Rebuilding America's Defenses document.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Meritage is listed there.

Anyway, the letter of which you speak actually took place before Desert Fox. I don't know what Armitage's views were from that point until he was DSoS, but his view on Iraq while he was there mirrored that of Powell.

Armitage was actually interviewed to be Deputy SecDef, but he knew there was no way he could work with Rummy.

[Nbadan]

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW10-26-05.jpg

[BradLohaus]

Bill Kristol and all the other PNACers should be held in Guantanamo indefinitely for national security purposes.

[Nbadan]

Here is the passport they found of one of the 911 hijackers...


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/472_saeed_alghamdi_passport2050081722-13059.jpghttp://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/656_al_suqami_passport2050081722-9425.jpg

Still no word on ever finding the body...

[Nbadan]

Here is a cool link you could spend days at: It's an archive of all the News channels on Sept 11th - Sept13, 2001..

Television archive (http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive)

[johnsmith]

Here is the passport they found of one of the 911 hijackers...


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/472_saeed_alghamdi_passport2050081722-13059.jpghttp://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/656_al_suqami_passport2050081722-9425.jpg

Still no word on ever finding the body...

link please

[S_A_Longhorn]

Good, open conversation here guys.

I'm don't buy the 9-11 conspiracy, but there are several things that trouble me after researching the subject again yesterday. First, most here believe government had some idea a terrorist attack was coming. From Wiki:

the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) a neoconservative think tank may have been responsible.The organization has drawn much attention from conspiracy theorists because Vice President Cheney and many current and former top Bush foreign policy officials were members.[187] It cites as evidence a statement from page 51 of a document titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' published by PNAC: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor

If the government knew something was going to happen, the people who founded this ideology had the power to "allow" it to happen too. That is a strange coincidence...

Second, the attack on the Pentagon. Only a few snapshots of the attack on the Pentagon have been released, even tho the Pentagon has the most security cameras than any other building in the world. Nonetheless, a security camera from a hotel captured the attack as did a nearby Citgo gas station and another camera from the Virginia Dept of Transportation. All were confiscated and have never been released. Why has no video of the attack on the Pentagon ever been released? Why?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Pentagon_video_security1.jpg

Finally, Bush and Cheaney would not testify under oath with the 9-11 Commission. Instead, they met with commision together, not under oath, and with no written record of their meeting. The final 9-11 Commission report was also censored by the White House. Why?

But as we remember 9-11 six years later, and we give respect to those who have died, we need to remember what has happened since then.

The Taliban is still alive and fighting in Afganistan six years later
Al-Queda is back to same strength as it was prior to 9-11 six years later.
Bin Ladan is still alive and still releasing tapes six years later.
Meanwhile, Bush is escaltaing the war in Iraq five years later.

How can people support this administration after all that has happened on that day and since that day in 2001 is beyond me.

[ChumpDumper]

Hate to burst your bubble, but the Citgo tape was released a year ago.

[WHOTTABITCH]

Gawd, i hate to agree with the Master Baiter on this one.

[S_A_Longhorn]

Hate to burst your bubble, but the Citgo tape was released a year ago.

you are correct. That was released by somone using the Freedom of Information act. Unfortunately, it did not show anything either. Why confiscate it then? You see an explosion, but can't tell what causes it.

WHere are the other videos?


Here is the passport they found of one of the 911 hijackers...


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/472_saeed_alghamdi_passport2050081722-13059.jpghttp://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/656_al_suqami_passport2050081722-9425.jpg

Still no word on ever finding the body...


SO, I'm supposed to believe that the hijacker's passport survivied the crash, the resulting explosion of the impact, the burning of the jet fuel which was strong enough to melt steel, and then survived the collapse of the building? And still be in good enough condition to read it's contents?

I'll have to remember to write down my thoughts and keep my personal belongings inside my passport next time I travel since that little book can survive anything that happens to me. :rolleyes

[WHOTTABITCH]

you are correct. That was released by somone using the Freedom of Information act. Unfortunately, it did not show anything either. Why confiscate it then? You see an explosion, but can't tell what causes it.

WHere are the other videos?


For investigational purposes and to prevent any profiting.

[ChumpDumper]

Assuming they actually show anything -- which is a dicey assumption as proven by the Citgo tape -- why do they need to be seen? There are scores of eyewitnesses that saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon.

[S_A_Longhorn]

Good thing Katie Couric was working that day, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see the WTC attacks.

[johnsmith]

you are correct. That was released by somone using the Freedom of Information act. Unfortunately, it did not show anything either. Why confiscate it then? You see an explosion, but can't tell what causes it.

WHere are the other videos?




SO, I'm supposed to believe that the hijacker's passport survivied the crash, the resulting explosion of the impact, the burning of the jet fuel which was strong enough to melt steel, and then survived the collapse of the building? And still be in good enough condition to read it's contents?

I'll have to remember to write down my thoughts and keep my personal belongings inside my passport next time I travel since that little book can survive anything that happens to me. :rolleyes


Everyone knows, especially Dan, that passports are made out of the same material that the "black box" is made out of.

[WHOTTABITCH]

Good thing Katie Couric was working that day, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see the WTC attacks.


Cuz that's what true closet conservatives do, praise katie couric. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, they found John Talignani's driver's license at the Flight 93 site.

But he either never existed or was killed in a hangar at the Cleveland Airport with all the other Flight 93 passengers, right?

[boutons_]

"If the government knew something was going to happen, the people who founded this ideology had the power to "allow" it to happen too."

Read the article I posted above. The CIA/FBI/NSA had tons of indications, which "came together" in June, but the WH, Condi, and Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz failed to react AT ALL, Wolfowitz even accusing the security agencies of being suckered by "disinformation" about "multiple, simultaneious attacks on US", "planes into buildings", etc, etc.

I see only two explanations:

1. Criminal negligence of NatSec/defensive duty. The WH and Repug Congress were sitting fat, dumb, and happy, having rammed through the most unfair tax cut in US history, their primary reason for seeking office. They weren't concerned at all by AQ or terrorism, because that was a Clinton obsession from which they, ideologically, reflexively, HAD to go the opposite direction. Anything "Clinton" was ideologically bad.

2. They figured something might happen, and if it did, WHIG would exploit it dishonestly to justify their PRE-2000 intention of Iraq "regime change" for a US-oilco-friendly puppet regime. Something did happen, and the WH did effectively exploit, esp dickhead who went on for years saying Saddam did WTC, and a significant %age of Americans STILL believe Saddam did WTC.

[ChumpDumper]

Everything I've seen points to option 1.

This government simply isn't competent enough to pull off any kind of 9/11 scheme.

[boutons_]

2. is equally credilble. WHIG/neo-cunts are that cynical, venal, Machiavellan(Rove). They could do nothing (requires NO competence), and then classify the hell out of everything as a coverup, which is exactly what dickhead has done. Note the WH's refusal to support a 9/11 commission for many months (time covers up a lot), and then circumscribed their co-operation with The 9/11 Commission as to be effectively uncooperative, stonewalling. Charlie McCarthy was allowed to testify ONLY with Edgar present, etc, etc.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, that's giving them too much credit. The Bush administration simply didn't take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously. All the 9/11 Commission shenanigans occurred because they knew they were going to look bad for their willful ignorance and didn't like having that come out in an election year.

[Nbadan]

link please


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

[ChumpDumper]

Do we really need that guy's body? Is this what the conspiracy nontheorists hang their hat on? A piece of paper made it out of the building after the crash?

[Nbadan]

Do we really need that guy's body? Is this what the conspiracy nontheorists hang their hat on? A piece of paper made it out of the building after the crash?

they never really discussed what, if any parts of the terra-ist bodies were found did they? I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, just that it's odd, but feel free to throw any attempt at a open 911 topic immediately under the bus.....

[clambake]

They took the bodies to a secret govt. lab. They're going to clone them and torture them in that order.

[Nbadan]

1. Criminal negligence of NatSec/defensive duty. The WH and Repug Congress were sitting fat, dumb, and happy, having rammed through the most unfair tax cut in US history, their primary reason for seeking office. They weren't concerned at all by AQ or terrorism, because that was a Clinton obsession from which they, ideologically, reflexively, HAD to go the opposite direction. Anything "Clinton" was ideologically bad.

The more likely scenario....


2. They figured something might happen, and if it did, WHIG would exploit it dishonestly to justify their per-2000 intention of Iraq "regime change" for a US-oilco-friendly puppet regime. Something did happen, and the WH did effectively exploit, esp dickhead who went on for years saying Saddam did WTC, and a significant %age of Americans STILL believe Saddam did WTC.

The thing that bothers me about this possibility is that the adminstration wasn't clammering with a war with Islam before 911, they were still fully in Star Wars mode... they fully exploited it after-wards though...

[ChumpDumper]

they never really discussed what, if any parts of the terra-ist bodies were found did they?How would they know they were terraist body parts? I doubt the methods used to ID the other victims could be used for the hijackers because there are no dental or DNA records to compare them to.

[Nbadan]

....Gotta go do some linear Algebra. :reading

be back later.....

[Nbadan]

Hate to burst your bubble, but the Citgo tape was released a year ago.

Yep, and if you increase the pixel count using Photoshop on the exact moment before impact, you'd see the outlines of what slowing but obviously turns out to be a American Airlines plane....sorry missile conspiracy theorist!

:smokin

[Nbadan]

Let's have some fun and debunk the mysterious white plane seen over NY and Washington conspiracy theories..


http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/e4b091307.jpg

CNN: Mystery 9/11 aircraft was military 'doomsday plane'
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday September 13, 2007


Shortly before 10 am on the morning of September 11, 2001, amid rumors of a fourth hijacked plane headed for Washington, DC, a mystery aircraft appeared in restricted airspace over the White House. There has never been an official explanation for this incident, which has provided abundant fuel for 9/11 conspiracy theories.

CNN has now learned from two government sources that the mystery plane was a military aircraft and has determined that the blurry image on video appears to match photos of the Air Force's E-4B (discussed here on Wikipedia), a specially modified Boeing 747 with a communications pod behind the cockpit.

"The E-4B is a state of the art flying command post," CNN explained, "built and equipped for one reason -- to keep the government running no matter what, even in the event of a nuclear war, the reason it was nicknamed the 'doomsday plane' during the Cold War."

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton told CNN he was aware of the incident and that it had simply never seemed important enough to make it into the commission's report. He called conspiracy theories involving government complicity in 9/11 "ludicrous."

The plane was previously identified as the E-4B a year ago by one researcher on a forum associated with the 9/11 conspiracy film, Loose Change.

CNN acknowledges that, despite its identification, the absence of the aircraft from official investigations, together with the Pentagon's denial that it was a military plane and the insistence by the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA that they have no explanation for the incident, may continue to raise suspicions.

The following video is from CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, broadcast on September 12. Video (http://rawstory.com//news/2007/CNN_investigates_secret_911_doomsday_plane_0913.ht ml)

This guy (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/911MysteryPlane.pdf) spent a lot of time and money putting together this PDF file covering the 911 mysterious white plane...

[Wild Cobra]

Let's have some fun and debunk the mysterious white plane seen over NY and Washington conspiracy theories..

It probably was one of the Airborne Command Posts. What would the conspiracy be?

Now I just scanned the PDF file rather than reading it in-depth. He missed a few important features of NEACP, but that's no surprise. They are probably still classified.

For some reason Netscape would crash on me trying to see the video and explorer has no sound with it. I also had some security alerts. I suggest everyone check for viruses and spyware that clicked on the link.

Back to NEACP. Seems like to me it followed normal procedure. First of all, they still probably fly 24/7, even it it wasn't involved in some training mission. Always one of them in the air. Without the audio, I can’t be sure, but it looked like it was making a combat landing... or did the camera tilt? Why in the DC area? It probably picked up a passenger, probably Donald Rumsfeld. Anyone know where he was during that timeframe? Did he already leave the pentagon?

Seeing Airborne Command Post is nothing to worry about. Just that it is a rare sight to witness it.

[Nbadan]

In case you missed it, here is a post 911 Budweiser commercial which only ever aired once - a touch of class...

Budweiser (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=966_1187636093)

[BacktoBasics]

I'm not going to dig back to find the other 9-11 thread but you conspiracy nuts will love this one

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/6F393F4DE41C4CF798CBB438E6378129/september-clues-part1.aspx