Hollus

Do you have standing? Can you submit an FOA request? How are you challenging the "official story"? An investigation has already been completed. Grow up Bush-Cheney. You know exactly what I mean. Quit reiterating points I have already addressed. The investigation you refer to has been flaged by a FBI Director. Nuff said.

I made absolutly NO such claim! I simply highlighted the fact that the only survaillence videos in existance that show the impact of what hit the Pentagon have been confiscated and classified. I have called for the Freedom of Information Act to be honoured and for these tapes to be released as there should be no reason for them being withheld. It may appear that way to you, but this is only because of your own presuppositions. Apperantly you have an inherent need for story-lines, which goes along way in explaining why you find it so hard to question the one you've been fed and swallowed. I imagine your very afraid of the idea that your government has not been completely forthright with you and is infact blocking your ability to investigate the nature of their machinations. And you should be. I openly admit that I dont know what happened that day, but I do know that what we're being told is far from the true story (or at the very least far from the whole story), and most certianly has been designed to be that way, so people like yourself will not question an event that has opened the door to unimaginable assults on humanity in the name of fighting terror. Its probably marching in line like you. Here you go misconstruing the article and what Ive said. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh is pointing to a deliberate cover-up by the 9/11 commision of the most critical piece of intelligence that could have prevented 9/11. Freeh gave a blistering review of the Commission and says new revelations indicate it is "a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself." An FBI Director deaming the 9/11 commision invalid and sympothising with 9/11 families desire for a new 9/11 commision. "No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a ‘new' commission to investigate." But wait a minute... He hasnt provided and alternate story-line! He must be a conspiracy theorist right?

Im referring specifically to comments posted within the 9/11 and False-Flag Terrorism threads in US Politics. I know this problem is rampant throughout this board but I would appreciate it if these useless detracting posts could be weened from the threads as they cloud the actual debate that is taking place. How many moderators are on here? Could there be an election to provide enough moderators to enable enforcement of forum rules?

"conspiracy theory n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act." I claim the Government story is bogus and needs to be investigated. Thats not a conspiracy theory. Yes it does imply that a conspiracy exists, but I am merly challenging the official story as bunk and calling for an investigation. Bullshit. Infact you've just ignored it in my previous post regarding the intelligence investigation you mention. Former FBI Director Charges 9/11 Cover-Up You could even refer to former FBI Director Louis Freeh as a whistle-blower.

No, the answer to both questions is no, and the surrounding strawmen ("death tolls") are irrelevant to the accusation of government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. The USA went to war following a legal authorization from the Congress. You have failed yet again to present any evidence. Falling for propaganda again Bush_Cheney2004. The Bush administration most certainly did lie the American public into war. Where are these alleged WMD's? "We have found the weapons of mass destruction," -Bush "We found biological laboratories." -Bush

Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension. The point of my previous post being: I have not put forth a conspiracy theory. You keep demanding one, however I refuse to put forth a speculated theory at your behest. I (and others arguing against the Government story) are calling for an investigation into the events of 9/11 based on strong evidence that the government story is a bogus fairy-tale designed to soothe the goose stepping masses marching to the beat of the war drum. Put Bush and Cheney under oath to testify about the events of 9/11. Investigate the unprecedented failure to intercept wayward aircraft. Investgate the Intelligence failure that allowed Mohummad Atta to carry out attacts despite forewarning of the pending attacks. Investigate the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7. Investigate the insider trading in the days preceding 9/11. Investigate the motives behind Bush and Cheneys blocking of a public inquiry into 9/11. Arguably the largest intelligence failure and air defence failure in the history of the United States and no one has been held accountable or investigated. Is the Bush administration not interested in how the countries defences failed? Do they not wish to learn how to better protect the country in the future? No this analogy does not fit. Evidence in support of evolution is solid and scientifically accepted. What evidence supports the governments story-line? The 9/11 Commission Report is full of omissions and distortions. So much so that former FBI Director Louis Freeh Charges 9/11 Commision with Cover-Up "Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh slammed the 9/11 Commission Thursday saying it ignored – or "summarily rejected" – the most critical piece of intelligence that could have prevented the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001."

Not an excuse. If you expect the government to live up to a certain standard of evidence then you must also meet that same standard. To claim otherwise is simple hypocrisy. Do you dispute the fact that the United States has been directly involved in false-flag operations? Do you dispute the fact that these operations remained undiscovered until whistle-blowers and/or the release of classified documents revealed the nature of their design? It is the very nature of a false-flag attack to deceive and elude detection. It is therefore quite unrealistic to demand someone who is without the access to classified information to account for a detailed description of the true event. You ask for an alternative story-line and claim that any such story-line would have as many holes as the Government story-line. This is true because the government story-line lacks details, and any alternative story without details will also have holes in it. However, it is not beyond reasonable for someone to provide evidence that the existing story-line is false and that the creators of that story-line are concealing the true nature of the event. Riverwind, you sure are choosy of what you resopond to. Ive responded with a logical explaniation, yet you ignore this and regurgitate your assertion as if it was not addressed. Its kind of hard to debate with you, when you act like this. Respond to my full post. Not just a sentence out of its context. Otherwise you have no credibility.

Do you dispute the fact that the United States has been directly involved in false-flag operations? Do you dispute the fact that these operations remained undiscovered until whistle-blowers and/or the release of classified documents revealed the nature of their design? It is the very nature of a false-flag attack to deceive and elude detection. It is therefore quite unrealistic to demand someone who is without the access to classified information to account for a detailed description of the true event. You ask for an alternative story-line and claim that any such story-line would have as many holes as the Government story-line. This is true because the government story-line lacks details, and any alternative story without details will also have holes in it. However, it is not beyond reasonable for someone to provide evidence that the existing story-line is false and that the creators of that story-line are concealing the true nature of the event.

Sigh. Such an argument means nothing unless you can provide a plausible storyline that explains how the US government could have planned such a hoax. They did before numerous times. History repeats itself. Im sure your very busy trolling the boards with your self-righteous assertations, but if you have any interest in reality you will take the time to watch. But probably you will not.

Another rookie who doesn't do homework...see "Iraq Liberation Act", to wit: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) [1] (codified in a note to 22 USCS § 2151) is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. ...President George W. Bush has often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October of 2002 (Public Law 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act In 1998, George Bush was still governor of Texas. Desert Fox was a four day decapitation bombing campaign designed to topple Saddam and his "WMD" capabilities. The Iraqi Liberation Act authorized support of opposition to Saddam Hussiens regime. NOT removal of Saddam Hussiens regime. You can read the Iraqi Liberation Act for yourself and see that it consists of humanitarian assistance, the restriction of humanitarian assistance, and the authority to provide assistance to Iraqi democratic opposition organizations. Far from dooming the regime as you say, the Act was designed to promote democratic opposition within Iraq. Much the same as is done in any State that does not fall in-line with American interests (like Venezuela for instance, H.RES.716.) You are mistaking propaganda for fact.

Its a long one, but it documents the undisputed history of self inflicted terrorist attacks that have been used to justify statecraft. Anyone who is unable to grasp the concept of why an event like 9/11 could have been orchastrated as a false flag attack should watch this documentary in full. TerrorStorm

The American public believes in a lot of things....they have the right to do so. They elected a Congress that doomed Saddam way back in 1998...long before 9/11. Try again.... Provide a source for that. Operation Desert Fox had absolutely nothing to do with invasion and occupation of Iraq. Assuming that the intelligence on Saddam's WMDs prior to Operation Desert Fox was accurate, Operation Desert Fox was justifiable and successful in reducing Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities to rubble. After Operation Desert Fox in 1998, the intelligence obtained prior to that could not be used as justification for another attack on Saddam Hussein, especially since senior Bush administration officials admitted even in early-to-mid 2001 that Saddam had been effectively defanged of his WMDs. So it is you who must try again, or wake up to the fact that you are being grossly decieved by your government and news media.

The US was already at "war" with Saddam's Iraq long before 9/11. Did Canada and the rest of NATO also have "PNAC" motives for invading Afghanistan? Must have something like this, eh? "Hey, I have a great idea. Let's write our manifesto for world domination, publish it, and then invade Afghanistan....wait a spell, then invade Iraq." Nobody will notice! Brilliant! Devilishly clever plot, I must say. Do you have anything to contribute to this thread? I think you should re-write your signiture as it is quite out of line with your actual behavior.

Apparently you can't grasp it. Do you really believe the American public is well informed? 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussien was personally involved in 9/11. Iraq 9/11 poll

Selling the Iraq and Afgan wars to the American public without the advent of 9/11 would have been an entirely different matter than it was. Which is exactly what was implied by the PNAC document.

No we are not to believe that. WTC did not receive minor damage. WTC 7 did not recieve minor damage? It sure came down in quite symetrical fashoin for having a few sparse fires. You aren't really interested in reality are you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center "Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its own footprint." And ofcourse, we have the leaseholders "pull it" statement. And ofcourse, we can see quite obviously that WTC 5 and 6 were desimated by debris yet remained standing. If you fail to recognize the inconsistance between the WTC7 collapse and the surrounding buildings which sustained much more damage but still remained standing. If you fail to recognize the striking simularity between controlled demolition and the collapse of WTC7, than it is you who is not interested in reality.

What tapes....if you and the other kooks won't believe the relatives of the dead passengers, airplane wreckage at the scene, eye witnesses and video images...why would you believe so called tapes that have been the hands of the government for 6 years? Lets face it, until the toasters and microwaves of the world start broadcasting messages direct to the tin foil hats that terrorists did this, the crack pots won;t believe...... "The FBI is withholding at least another 84 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon."Classified Pentagon Tapes

No we are not to believe that. WTC did not receive minor damage. WTC 7 did not recieve minor damage? It sure came down in quite symetrical fashoin for having a few sparse fires. Wasnt hit by any planes. Minor debris at best. Take a look at the photo. What makes WTC 5 and 6 so much more resilient that they could withstand the tremendous damage they had without collapsing? This is a pretty huge thing to ignore. Why did the WTC 7 structurly fail?

Explosions in the basement, the lobby, various floors uneffected by the planes impact, the "squibs" occuring of to 30 floors below the collapse. The fact that all the witnessed explosions coincide with demolition procedure. Why should there be explosions? What was exploding? An airliner crahsed into the Pentagon? Lets see it. Freedom of Information Act. Release the tapes.

Lets look at WTC 7 collapse. How are we to believe that this building completly collapses into its own foot print as a result of the minor damage it sustained? Ofcoures we have the natorious "pull it" statment from lease holder Silverstien. Even firefighters had been ordered to stay away long before its collapse being told the building was coming down. But what about the tremendous damage sustained by WTC 5 and 6? These building remain standing. Somethings fishy...WTC 5,6,7 pic

What video evidence are you speaking of? If you have any video that shows anything discenrable other than a fireball please do post it. If we are to rely strictly on eye witness accounts (of which many conflict) than Im sure you will have no issue with relying on the numerous eye witness accounts of the multidude of explosions within the WTC buildings. Once again, if Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon as is widely held, lets see the classified tapes so we can all put this part of the mystery to rest.

False...there are several exothermic reactions that will become hotter than initiating heat. The steel needn't have melted at all....it only only had to lose strength and stiffness (elastic modulus) at the elevated temperatures for the open span design. We recently had another demonstration of the effects of heat on steel reinforced concrete structures: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html Are you implying that there was a exothermic reaction within the WTC? The sample of the molten metal contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.

This false assertion is debunked in the "Screw Loose Change" video, to wit: Claim: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) called for a "New Pearl Harbor" which resulted in 9/11 helping them acheive their goals. Truth: PNAC did not call for anything, they merely stated the timetable for their transformation would be slower. The transformation dealt with technological modification of the military, and has had absolutely nothing to do with the results of 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq. http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/ Merely stated the timetable for thier transformation would be slower. You dont find that a little disconcerting? Anyway the PNAC was about more than what your debunking video would have you believe. Section III Repositioning Today's Force: "Indeed the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussien." "...retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be and essential element is U.S security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." A letter to President Clinton in 1998: " 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." PNAC had in its sights permenant military presence to protect American strategic interests(Unocal's long standing efforts for a tans-Afghan pipeline) and the removal of Saddam (the most militarily vulnerable centrally located state in the middle-east and home to vast undeveloped oil resource which had trillion dollar contracts with France and Russia to be implemented once sanctions would have been lifted in 2002)

Freedom of Information Act. The tapes in question are exactly what is needed to answer those questions you put forth. Why where they confiscated and classified? If there is nothing to hide why are they hiding it?

There are blatant errors and inconsistancies, not minor ones. This is why there must be a full and independant investigation with under oath testemonies from the top level administrators such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The evidence to date strongly suggests the basic story is a fabrication designed as a pretext for a massive policy shift. The Project for a New American Century, written in 2000 and signed by the names Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle among others, outlined a massive military expansion, particularily in the middle east. Within this document (which was later incarnated as the National Defence Strategy once the admin took office) there is a sentence which states: "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" From the horses mouth. It goes deeper if your willing to look.