Issues with 9-11

geoffrey · March 24, 2006

Gost,

I admire what your doing here, but don't use the 81% of people think there was a cover up so an investigation is important. Most people in generally have no clue about things of the matter, and this isn't something you ask the public on. One of the weakest arguments that can be made is that most people think its important

But, that PDF isn't from the general public. It's from a crediable source. It's things like this that interest me, crediable academic sources. However, it doesn't really reach any conclusions on the facts of the matter, it pretty much just says things got spicey, we want to do more research.

Here is what I suggest if you wish to make some kind of break through. The collapse of WTC 7 is probably the biggest trouble spot, . I'd personally like to see more information on this. I call bullshit on the small fires explaination.

I'm as far as you could get from a conspiracy theorist... but that random small fires broke out in WTC 7 and the building collapsed perfectly to the ground? Come on now.

A bit of a question of my stupidity... did anyone die in the WTC 7 collapse?

Let me explain briefly a little bit of risk management, something I at least know something about... more than all this damned engineering witchcraft . In my reading of the WTC 7 materials, many people say their was a profit motive in having the fire department 'pull' the building. It only cost $300 some million to build and they got $800 some million. Well, there was definitely appreciation in that building's worth so it wasn't a profit per say. That difference would have been taxed in an capital appreciation type situation, and before the collapse when they had the building valued for insurance purposes.

You don't have an asset paid out at more than book value by insurance. If it was in the books at some hyper-inflated rate, it would have been way in advance. That means the owners would have had to be in cohoots with Osama, because a failure in the destruction of the towers would come as a massive tax cost... and I just can't believe that sorry. Remember, they also have to pay out all those office holders that lost equipment too, that is the WTC's liability. And clean up the site. $500mil for that? Not impossible thats for sure.

There was no profit motive, so I'd stick to something else in that regard.

Riverwind · March 24, 2006

Here is what I suggest if you wish to make some kind of break through. The collapse of WTC 7 is probably the biggest trouble spot, . I'd personally like to see more information on this. I call bullshit on the small fires explaination.

I remember watching the media coverage on the day (9/11) and remember pundits saying that the smaller buildings around the twin towers may be deliberately detonated because they were severly damaged and posed a risk to surrounding buildings. So there are legimate reasons that explain why/if WTC 7 was deliberately blow up, however, I don't understand why officials are claiming it fell down on its own.

Montgomery Burns · March 24, 2006

Hey all.
I am asking a favour from any of you who might have pictures or video footage of the World Trade Center attacks. Some of you will bite my head off 'oh noes conspiracy', but relax I have not come to any conclusions yet. I am still testing this theory.

Basicly I am looking for your pics/vids of the events of that day. I am testing a theory out. Send anything you have that might be of interest to [email protected].

I do not mean to open up old wounds, but something is not sitting well with me about that day.

Thanks all.

Contact former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berg(l)er--the guy who was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants from the National Archives prior to testifying in front of the 9-11 commission. He stole something like 50 classified documents and shredded them. If you are unaware of this, don't feel bad. The MSM completely buried this scandal. Why? Because Berg(l)er isn't a Republican. If a Republican had done this, it would have been the top news story for at least a month straight.

Obviously the scandal-ridden Clinton administration had something to hide.

Hopefully he got lots of paper cuts on his genitals. :angry:

GostHacked · March 24, 2006

Hey all.

I am asking a favour from any of you who might have pictures or video footage of the World Trade Center attacks. Some of you will bite my head off 'oh noes conspiracy', but relax I have not come to any conclusions yet. I am still testing this theory.

Basicly I am looking for your pics/vids of the events of that day. I am testing a theory out. Send anything you have that might be of interest to [email protected].

I do not mean to open up old wounds, but something is not sitting well with me about that day.

Thanks all.

Contact former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berg(l)er--the guy who was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants from the National Archives prior to testifying in front of the 9-11 commission. He stole something like 50 classified documents and shredded them. If you are unaware of this, don't feel bad. The MSM completely buried this scandal. Why? Because Berg(l)er isn't a Republican. If a Republican had done this, it would have been the top news story for at least a month straight.

Obviously the scandal-ridden Clinton administration had something to hide.

Hopefully he got lots of paper cuts on his genitals. :angry:

Saved any of those links??

We should pay attention to who was in charge when and of what during both of these administrations. I have moved away from the big bank heist theory, and just am concentrating on #7

I am also aware that the Bush admin is going into the National Archives and reclassifying a whack load of documents that should not have made declassified. So what are they pulling from the shelves? Why is that important?

Clinton AND Bush Jr, did not really know the scope of what went on. They may be the CEO but they do not control the military's day to day movement. But I think Bush knows more than Clinton, and he knows more of what went on.

GostHacked · March 24, 2006

Gost,
I admire what your doing here, but don't use the 81% of people think there was a cover up so an investigation is important. Most people in generally have no clue about things of the matter, and this isn't something you ask the public on. One of the weakest arguments that can be made is that most people think its important

But, that PDF isn't from the general public. It's from a crediable source. It's things like this that interest me, crediable academic sources. However, it doesn't really reach any conclusions on the facts of the matter, it pretty much just says things got spicey, we want to do more research.

Here is what I suggest if you wish to make some kind of break through. The collapse of WTC 7 is probably the biggest trouble spot, . I'd personally like to see more information on this. I call bullshit on the small fires explaination.

I'm as far as you could get from a conspiracy theorist... but that random small fires broke out in WTC 7 and the building collapsed perfectly to the ground? Come on now.

A bit of a question of my stupidity... did anyone die in the WTC 7 collapse?

Let me explain briefly a little bit of risk management, something I at least know something about... more than all this damned engineering witchcraft . In my reading of the WTC 7 materials, many people say their was a profit motive in having the fire department 'pull' the building. It only cost $300 some million to build and they got $800 some million. Well, there was definitely appreciation in that building's worth so it wasn't a profit per say. That difference would have been taxed in an capital appreciation type situation, and before the collapse when they had the building valued for insurance purposes.

You don't have an asset paid out at more than book value by insurance. If it was in the books at some hyper-inflated rate, it would have been way in advance. That means the owners would have had to be in cohoots with Osama, because a failure in the destruction of the towers would come as a massive tax cost... and I just can't believe that sorry. Remember, they also have to pay out all those office holders that lost equipment too, that is the WTC's liability. And clean up the site. $500mil for that? Not impossible thats for sure.

There was no profit motive, so I'd stick to something else in that regard.

OK no motive for profit. Then what other motives can we relate to this? WTC #7 is the focus of my investigation. You have Silverstien on a PBS documentary saying they 'pulled' the building. How does one rig a building to be pulled. Especialy with fires raging on several floors. (but they claimed they were small fires.

How many died in WTC7?? As far as I know. None.

IF 7 came down on it's own, 5 and 6 should have been CRUSHED to the ground and they were in between 1,2 and 7.

And I hope Sheen is just the start.

geoffrey · March 24, 2006

OK no motive for profit. Then what other motives can we relate to this? WTC #7 is the focus of my investigation. You have Silverstien on a PBS documentary saying they 'pulled' the building. How does one rig a building to be pulled. Especialy with fires raging on several floors. (but they claimed they were small fires.
How many died in WTC7?? As far as I know. None.

IF 7 came down on it's own, 5 and 6 should have been CRUSHED to the ground and they were in between 1,2 and 7.

And I hope Sheen is just the start.

That's the big question, why wouldn't they just admit that they blew it up for structural damange? Why wasn't 5 and 6 damaged being alot closer to 1 and 2?

So here is where I grab my tinfoil hat and setup my security system (aka. put a glass bottle on the foot door handle). Documents or something that would be better not found inside 7?

GostHacked · March 25, 2006

OK no motive for profit. Then what other motives can we relate to this? WTC #7 is the focus of my investigation. You have Silverstien on a PBS documentary saying they 'pulled' the building. How does one rig a building to be pulled. Especialy with fires raging on several floors. (but they claimed they were small fires.

How many died in WTC7?? As far as I know. None.

IF 7 came down on it's own, 5 and 6 should have been CRUSHED to the ground and they were in between 1,2 and 7.

And I hope Sheen is just the start.

That's the big question, why wouldn't they just admit that they blew it up for structural damange? Why wasn't 5 and 6 damaged being alot closer to 1 and 2?

So here is where I grab my tinfoil hat and setup my security system (aka. put a glass bottle on the foot door handle). Documents or something that would be better not found inside 7?

How would they even go in to rigg 5 and 6? They are not safe for humans to be near it, I guess it was solid enough to get in there and rig the explosives. Or again would this have to be done before? When was 5 and 6 brought down?

Montgomery Burns · March 25, 2006

Hey all.

I am asking a favour from any of you who might have pictures or video footage of the World Trade Center attacks. Some of you will bite my head off 'oh noes conspiracy', but relax I have not come to any conclusions yet. I am still testing this theory.

Basicly I am looking for your pics/vids of the events of that day. I am testing a theory out. Send anything you have that might be of interest to [email protected].

I do not mean to open up old wounds, but something is not sitting well with me about that day.

Thanks all.

Contact former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berg(l)er--the guy who was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants from the National Archives prior to testifying in front of the 9-11 commission. He stole something like 50 classified documents and shredded them. If you are unaware of this, don't feel bad. The MSM completely buried this scandal. Why? Because Berg(l)er isn't a Republican. If a Republican had done this, it would have been the top news story for at least a month straight.

Obviously the scandal-ridden Clinton administration had something to hide.

Hopefully he got lots of paper cuts on his genitals. :angry:

Saved any of those links??

We should pay attention to who was in charge when and of what during both of these administrations. I have moved away from the big bank heist theory, and just am concentrating on #7

I am also aware that the Bush admin is going into the National Archives and reclassifying a whack load of documents that should not have made declassified. So what are they pulling from the shelves? Why is that important?

Clinton AND Bush Jr, did not really know the scope of what went on. They may be the CEO but they do not control the military's day to day movement. But I think Bush knows more than Clinton, and he knows more of what went on.

Got links?

GostHacked · March 25, 2006

Hey all.

I am asking a favour from any of you who might have pictures or video footage of the World Trade Center attacks. Some of you will bite my head off 'oh noes conspiracy', but relax I have not come to any conclusions yet. I am still testing this theory.

Basicly I am looking for your pics/vids of the events of that day. I am testing a theory out. Send anything you have that might be of interest to [email protected].

I do not mean to open up old wounds, but something is not sitting well with me about that day.

Thanks all.

Contact former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berg(l)er--the guy who was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants from the National Archives prior to testifying in front of the 9-11 commission. He stole something like 50 classified documents and shredded them. If you are unaware of this, don't feel bad. The MSM completely buried this scandal. Why? Because Berg(l)er isn't a Republican. If a Republican had done this, it would have been the top news story for at least a month straight.

Obviously the scandal-ridden Clinton administration had something to hide.

Hopefully he got lots of paper cuts on his genitals. :angry:

Saved any of those links??

We should pay attention to who was in charge when and of what during both of these administrations. I have moved away from the big bank heist theory, and just am concentrating on #7

I am also aware that the Bush admin is going into the National Archives and reclassifying a whack load of documents that should not have made declassified. So what are they pulling from the shelves? Why is that important?

Clinton AND Bush Jr, did not really know the scope of what went on. They may be the CEO but they do not control the military's day to day movement. But I think Bush knows more than Clinton, and he knows more of what went on.

Got links?

Yes and Yes. Some of them are over the top with the whole conspiracy, and you can find alot on Google videos.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

After 1 and 2 fell, you can clearly see 7 standing tall.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=91...4449011&q=wtc+7

Fire Fighters from NY in the french brothers documentary, this was not in the CBS aired movie I saw. These guys can be seen throuout that film.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6...8152003&q=wtc+5

The is a new one I found for WTC 7

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=84...3265979&q=wtc+5

This is a long movie from another angle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...7461603&q=wtc+7

This is an interesting documentary.

Aftermath

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&sll=...16,0.014634&t=h

Check out the map, looks where 1 and 2, and where 7 stood, notice no damage to the other two buildings on either side of where 7 was. ODD??

I have more... let you chew on this for a while.

theloniusfleabag · March 25, 2006

Dear GostHacked,

In my mind only the collapse of WTC 7 seems suspicious. Mind you, one man profited immensely from the collapse of those buildings. Silverstein, I believe. An incredible stroke of luck and profit, to the tune of some 7+ billion dollars, after just recently taking over the lease and loading up on insurance (and then being paid double the insurance amount as the two towers were deemed 'two seperate events'). Still, nothing 'illegal', just remarkably coincidental.

GostHacked · March 26, 2006

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/WTC.911.calls/index.html

Some 9/11 emergency calls were released to vicitms families this week it seems. One person calls it 'crass'.

Why not release the information in full? Why edit it? Why only have the dispatchers and 911 operators voices on the tapes? Why can't we hear what went on? Out of respect for the dead?

\

The New York Court of Appeals last year ruled that the final words of a private citizen calling 911 were protected by privacy rights that could only be waived by next of kin.

Privacy rights? I call bull, when the NSA can tap your phone at anytime, don't even start with me on privacy rights. I hope the kin give the go ahead to release it to the public.

I think those full tapes have something we all need to hear. Agreed?

geoffrey · March 26, 2006

Dear GostHacked,
In my mind only the collapse of WTC 7 seems suspicious. Mind you, one man profited immensely from the collapse of those buildings. Silverstein, I believe. An incredible stroke of luck and profit, to the tune of some 7+ billion dollars, after just recently taking over the lease and loading up on insurance (and then being paid double the insurance amount as the two towers were deemed 'two seperate events'). Still, nothing 'illegal', just remarkably coincidental.

Your lacking in your understanding of insurance. You can't just insure for an event to happen, you insure for damages to your property. It's not like you get "tower attack insurance" and because it was two attacks you get twice as much. No, you get paid for the worth of the towers and the liabilities that exist in event of a structural failure.

The owner would also have to pay damages and back rent to all those tenants, that $7+ billion is more than he lost that day.

No profit scheme was involved.

GostHacked · March 27, 2006

Dear GostHacked,

In my mind only the collapse of WTC 7 seems suspicious. Mind you, one man profited immensely from the collapse of those buildings. Silverstein, I believe. An incredible stroke of luck and profit, to the tune of some 7+ billion dollars, after just recently taking over the lease and loading up on insurance (and then being paid double the insurance amount as the two towers were deemed 'two seperate events'). Still, nothing 'illegal', just remarkably coincidental.

Your lacking in your understanding of insurance. You can't just insure for an event to happen, you insure for damages to your property. It's not like you get "tower attack insurance" and because it was two attacks you get twice as much. No, you get paid for the worth of the towers and the liabilities that exist in event of a structural failure.

The owner would also have to pay damages and back rent to all those tenants, that $7+ billion is more than he lost that day.

No profit scheme was involved.

Silverstein was given a 99 year lease about 2 months before 9/11. Notice the two buildings on either side of WTC #7, you will find out Silverstein does not own those properties. And you may be right, he may have had to pay out. But every company that did buisienss in the WTC complex had their own insurance. If they did not have insurance, then they are quite stupid. So the money payed out from Silverstein would be low.

Michael Hardner · March 27, 2006

A few comments:

First of all, the conspiracy theories - all of them - are completely silly. I can believe that certain government agencies might want to cover up their own ineptitude, but that's as far as I can go.

And given the fact that Ms. Rice herself testified that she had seen a report warning of attacks - even the government's ability to cover itself seems limited to me.

These theories are silly because such an operation would have been far too complex and unpredictable to achieve any end. How could anyone have predicted any of the outcomes (beyond the obvious immediate impacts) of such an event with any certainty beforehand ?

You couldn't.

Some quotes above:

They couldn't keep eight chicago ballplayers quiet about fixing the world series, but they've kept hundreds of people quiet on this one. Right.

I agreed, but it's more like thousands.

It would have to include WTC maintenance workers, airline workers, NYC officials and so on and so on...

It's ridiculous.

Another quote:

OH and a recent CNN poll said that 81% who polled thought the US government covered up 9/11

That's the saddest thing to me about this whole conspiracy thing.

Public faith in institutions has deteriorated to the point where 81% of the population doesn't believe their own government's account of what happened. In my opinion, that's the most damaging thing that has come out of the attacks.

Dissent is necessary, but there also needs to be some kind of public forum for consensus. Otherwise, rumours and disinformation will run the day and there's no way to move forward.

Global Warming is another example of a debate that can't rise above a kind of conspiracy theory. ( ie. That UN scientists are working toward their own ends, that anti-Americanism is tainting research etc. etc. )

The public needs trusted sources of good information in order to elect good governments. This is the central nervous system for our democratic system. If it's sick, then we're done for.

geoffrey · March 27, 2006

Your lacking in your understanding of insurance. You can't just insure for an event to happen, you insure for damages to your property. It's not like you get "tower attack insurance" and because it was two attacks you get twice as much. No, you get paid for the worth of the towers and the liabilities that exist in event of a structural failure.

The owner would also have to pay damages and back rent to all those tenants, that $7+ billion is more than he lost that day.

No profit scheme was involved.

Silverstein was given a 99 year lease about 2 months before 9/11. Notice the two buildings on either side of WTC #7, you will find out Silverstein does not own those properties. And you may be right, he may have had to pay out. But every company that did buisienss in the WTC complex had their own insurance. If they did not have insurance, then they are quite stupid. So the money payed out from Silverstein would be low.

Arg! This is another misunderstanding of insurance. The insurance company of the liable party pays out, otherwise they'd be sued by the others. Silverstein would be liable for much of the damage because his buildings fell down and destroyed everything. Never the less, the price tag on a couple of towers like those in downtown New York could easily be close to $7B to rebuild, which would be the basis of the insurance payout, on top of which any possible claims from tenants.

I'm actually suprised the payout is so low.

Silverstein was not a 9/11 conspirator and hired the hijackers to kill thousands so he could make money. Find another motive.

KrustyKidd · March 27, 2006

Silverstein was not a 9/11 conspirator and hired the hijackers to kill thousands so he could make money.

For sure yea of the closed mind. Cheney did his telekenisis act on them all. Even did Clinton too as he told an audience in Ottawa he knew as soon as the second plane hit that it was Al Qeda.

Try to not be so close minded and, do some reading. And reading.

Oh, don't forget to read, and open that ...... well you know what I mean. :lol:

GostHacked · March 27, 2006

Your lacking in your understanding of insurance. You can't just insure for an event to happen, you insure for damages to your property. It's not like you get "tower attack insurance" and because it was two attacks you get twice as much. No, you get paid for the worth of the towers and the liabilities that exist in event of a structural failure.

The owner would also have to pay damages and back rent to all those tenants, that $7+ billion is more than he lost that day.

No profit scheme was involved.

Silverstein was given a 99 year lease about 2 months before 9/11. Notice the two buildings on either side of WTC #7, you will find out Silverstein does not own those properties. And you may be right, he may have had to pay out. But every company that did buisienss in the WTC complex had their own insurance. If they did not have insurance, then they are quite stupid. So the money payed out from Silverstein would be low.

Arg! This is another misunderstanding of insurance. The insurance company of the liable party pays out, otherwise they'd be sued by the others. Silverstein would be liable for much of the damage because his buildings fell down and destroyed everything. Never the less, the price tag on a couple of towers like those in downtown New York could easily be close to $7B to rebuild, which would be the basis of the insurance payout, on top of which any possible claims from tenants.

I'm actually suprised the payout is so low.

Silverstein was not a 9/11 conspirator and hired the hijackers to kill thousands so he could make money. Find another motive.

And this is what I want to find out. Building #7 find out why it fell, then go from there. Trust me.

PolyNewbie · March 28, 2006

The fact that the buildings fell in 8.4 seconds shows that they were in freefall and therefore not smashing through concrete and steel beams on the way down.

An application of grade 10 physics can show that it would have taken at least 9.4 seconds for the buildings to fall according to the pancake theory. If you include the effects of bending steel and pulverizing concrete then it would have taken much longer.

Furthermore the official explanation of the collapse violates the second law of thermodynamics which essentially states this: Buildings that fail due to an asymmetrical event do not collapse neatly into small pieces that can be loaded onto a flatbed truck and illegally whisked away to China for recycling before anyone can do a serious investigation.

Michael Hardner · March 28, 2006

Poly.

It's very easy to look at a large scale disaster and find anomalies.

You could spend your whole life picking through the wreckage and finding strange and probably unexplainable things. Perhaps you would find that to be a compelling use of your time, but it would be wasteful.

There's no way that a large scale conspiracy such as the one described could be approved. There would be too much room for error, and too much unpredictability.

GostHacked · March 28, 2006

Poly.
It's very easy to look at a large scale disaster and find anomalies.

You could spend your whole life picking through the wreckage and finding strange and probably unexplainable things. Perhaps you would find that to be a compelling use of your time, but it would be wasteful.

There's no way that a large scale conspiracy such as the one described could be approved. There would be too much room for error, and too much unpredictability.

If you don't ask questions, you will never learn anything. Even if you learn that you might be wrong. Like I said, I am hoping I am wrong about 9/11.

WTC site was cleaned up in 6 months. you figure in a crime scene you would want to block off the area to do a full investigation before you just blindly haul out the materials. This is done for every other crime sceen. Why not this one?

Here are some buildings getting demo'd.

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

Michael Hardner · March 28, 2006

If you don't ask questions, you will never learn anything. Even if you learn that you might be wrong. Like I said, I am hoping I am wrong about 9/11.

Questions stop when you get a satisfactory answer.

What makes an answer satisfactory ?

Maybe it just makes sense to you, or maybe it comes from a trusted source, or maybe some other reason. But the questions should stop at some point. And when you have no more questions, maybe you can ask yourself one more:

Why am I satisfied with this answer over the others ?

WTC site was cleaned up in 6 months. you figure in a crime scene you would want to block off the area to do a full investigation before you just blindly haul out the materials. This is done for every other crime sceen. Why not this one?

This is another example of looking at a large complex operation with a suspicious eye (ie a closed mind) and coming up with a suspicious result.

If it had taken years to clean up, you might easily have asked instead:

"Why does it take years to clean up the site when it could have been done in six months ?"

Here are some buildings getting demo'd.
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

It doesn't matter what other buildings look like coming down.

I'm more interested in why you're suspicious in the first place. ie. What is it in you that makes you suspicious ?

GostHacked · March 28, 2006

It doesn't matter what other buildings look like coming down. I'm more interested in why you're suspicious in the first place. ie. What is it in you that makes you suspicious ?

It does matter how other buildings come down. Or DON'T come down. If the FEMA report stands true that 25% of the front face was gouged out, would it not make sense that the building would tip towards 5 and 6?

Why was 5 and 6 still standing? You can clearly see big gapping holes right through the roof of 5 and 6, they are not small . Part of 5 and 6 were destroyed when 1,2 fell. In my view, the massive pile a shit that came down, should have crushed 5 and 6. But were left standing, 7 got hit, and crumbled straight down.

And no I am not satisfied. I have many more questions to find answers for,

1,2 blew up, only way I can describe it.

7 came straight down.

5 and 6 needed to be 'pulled' later on.

I have been watching some physicists explanations on it, and have found consistancies between them. Important ones.

GostHacked · March 30, 2006

I am gonna try to keep all the articles regarding 9/11 in this thread.

FDNY calls about to be released to the public.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/30/attacks.9...p.ap/index.html

Sally Regenhard, who lost her firefighter son and is one of the plaintiffs, said the public should be allowed to hear both sides of the conversation to get a true picture of what happened inside the towers.

I am anxious to get my hands on this information. I am really surprised it took this long to have these things released. I hope this sheds light on some events.

Also there were more remains found in one of the buildings

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/28/wtc.remains.ap/index.html

Also they managed to DNA identify two of the 9/11 hijackers.

Examiners could not say which of the hijackers' remains had been discovered because the FBI did not identify which of the DNA samples belonged to which hijacker, she said

New York officials are attempting to identify the hijackers' remains because "the families of victims in the attacks do not want the hijackers' remains mixed together with those of the victims in any future memorial that may be created," she said.

That must be a freakin task and a half.

GostHacked · April 1, 2006

This is pretty interesting.

http://207.44.245.159/article7545.htm

According to this FoxNews reporter, the Israelies may have known than they let on to beleive. Apperently according to what I read is that the news areticles were pulled fro FoxNews.com's archives. This shows some evidence of the Isreali spying program in the US.

Looks like their website is hosted in Australia.

Well, investigation continues!

PolyNewbie · April 1, 2006

The way I see it as that you can prove that there is a conspiracy using one of three methods

(1) Look at the physical evidence and read the official story in any one of the accidents at WTC1,2 & 7 as well as the Pentagon. You could build a case on the evidence from any one of these sites does not even closely suggest the official line.

(2) You could look at the series of co incidences around it - the US army coudn't shoot down those planes. They were conducting an exercise of the same thing (read rehearsal). The WTC was entirely shut down weeks before - in a way such as never before - all the personnel were cleared out. Bushes brother was in charge of security and did something very unusual before the crashes. The planes that hit the pentagon hit it where no one was working. All the physical evidence is gone- the planes in the Pentagon and in Pennisilvania - gone. The building wreckages - gone (illegally)

(3) The government coverups and all of the lies. The fact that it was used to justify a war against terror and that Iraq was identified as a member of the Axis Of Evil. They even had most Americans thinking Saddam Hussein masterminded the attacks without coming out and explicitly saying this. It was a huge psyc - ops operation. The governement did not act as if the official line was true.

Come on - "War Against Terror", "Axis Of Evil". This was a marketing campain. The idea was sold in 1 minute sound bites.