Saturday, March 31, 2007

Neo-Con: 'Execute Rosie For Questioning the Government'

Feverish MSNBC guest calls for death penalty to stop free speech

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
March 30, 2007

Frothing bloodthirsty Neo-Con TV talking heads have crossed the line in their response to Rosie O'Donnell's comments on The View, with one MSNBC guest calling for O'Donnell to be executed for questioning the U.S. government.

Here is the clip of Rosie from The View”:

Maniacal Neo-Con attack dogs cannot debate Rosie O'Donnell on a level playing field about the issues she raises on her show and therefore always have to resort to ad hominem name calling, demands that she be fired and as was broadcast last night, public calls for her to be hanged.
Actor and radio host Danny Bonaduce, appearing as a guest last night on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, hosted by former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough, advocated the death penalty in response to Rosie O'Donnell's statements about the Iran hostage crisis and her questioning the official story behind 9/11.

"Personally I think at this point if anyone had a rope thick enough, I think that Rosie should be strung up for treason," states Bonaduce, claiming that O'Donnell is giving "aid and comfort to the enemy."
Bonaduce was quick to cry foul after claiming his own family had received death threats after he appeared in a You Tube video being asked about 9/11 conspiracies, but it seems he has no qualms about advocating the murder of Rosie O'Donnell.
Unlike Bonaduce and his ilk, we afford him the right to make his sick and disgraceful comments under the banner of the first amendment, but the nature of his warped rhetoric highlights perfectly the attitude of these festering Bush cheerleaders and their fundamentalist zeal to see anyone who questions the government hung from the highest rafter.

Because Bonaduce doesn't have the intellectual capacity nor the decorum to calmly refute Rosie with reasoning, logic and evidence, his only recourse is to impetuously demand she be killed.
Likewise, the Hannity's, Scarborough's and O'Reilly's of the world can only keep feeding their braindead audience the kool-aid by wrapping themselves in phony patriotism and calling O'Donnell un-American because she doesn't agree that U.S. troops should be fed into another meat grinder.

These mouthpieces have the nerve to demand O'Donnell apologize to troops in Iraq when it was their willful and unquestioning pimping of war propaganda fed to them by the Bush administration that helped get the troops into the disaster in the first place.
The remainder of their rebuttal consists of highlighting O'Donnell's weight, while repeating a string of childish insults to the glowing approval of their mindless desecrated American flag made in China waving drunken audience.
The other aspect to it is that they are panicking about their ratings dropping month after month and know that starting a feud with O'Donnell will temporarily bring back attention to their failing broadcast and briefly rejuvenate their stuttering careers.
Any rational minded person can look at what both sides are saying and come to a decision as to who is more likely telling the truth - an individual who presents evidence and asks questions in a detailed and calm manner, or a gaggle of attack dogs who hurl 3rd grade level insults and demand the individual be killed for questioning the status quo.
You decide.

Below are clips of bully Neo-cons O’ Liar and Hannity condemning Rosie:

O’ LIElly

Hannity & C

by Larry Simons

Not that I can follow another excellent article by the great Paul Joseph Watson, but here’s just a few of my thoughts on this whole issue. I am not particularly thrilled that Rosie O’ Donnell is now a spokesman for 9/11 truth. She’s kind of a has-been and a loudmouth…and of course those two things will make you a very easy target, especially when you say controversial things like the things she’s been saying lately. BUT, having said that, let me say this: This is incredible exposure for 9/11 truth. Rosie is reaching more people with this message than have ever been reached before by single telecasts in American homes. Many people, I’m sure that have never heard these things are being reached for the very first time.

What I love is the fact that Neo-con, hatemongering assholes like O’ Reilly and Hannity are about to explode. It is quite fun watching them panic in the face of celebrity after celebrity joining and not backing away from the truth of 9/11. It’s fun watching these buffoons squirm in their seats, not being intellectually capable of addressing specific points Sheen or O’ Donnell make, so they have no choice but to resort to personal attacks, name-calling and calls to have these people silenced either by firing or by career-ending non-support from their fans. Now, we have king of all loudmouths and has-been’s Danny Bonaduce appearing on Scarborough Country last night advocating the hanging of Rosie O’ Donnell. And for what? Speaking out in a FREE America? (I think it’s still free) If it’s one thing I LOVE doing on my site it’s exposing BLATANT hypocrisy of these far-right, Neo-con haters of liberty. Below is a clip of Bonaduce when he appeared on the O’ Reilly factor in December with guest host John Kasich and astonishingly it was about his encounter with 9/11 truther John Conner (real name Mark Dice). Danny ranted to Kasich that he had received death threats by people, and that he’s a TRUE patriot because his brother-in-law was in Iraq and was shot….as if Conner was against the troops in Iraq just because he was saying 9/11 is an inside job.

So, here’s Bonaduce angry because he had received death threats for cussing out John Conner, and then this asshole has the audacity to go on national TV and tell everyone that he would love to see Rosie hanged, which was met with just a non-chalant objection by Scarborough. What is interesting in the clip above is that Bonaduce ADMITS that he knows NOTHING about the 9/11 cover-up and even says he is “UNINFORMED”, yet when people who ARE informed like O’ Donnell about the Gulf of Tonkin, false flag terrorism and the collapse of WTC 7, she is to be silenced, fired and hanged for treason??? Amazing!

Who in the fuck is Danny Bonaduce anyway? He’s a child star who had a TV show for a few years in the early 70’s, went on to do absolutely nothing except spend much of his life in rehab for being a drug addict, didn’t serve in the military, yet HE is a patriot because his BROTHER-IN-LAW is fighting in Iraq? (the same way O’ LIElly is a patriot because his nephew was there too, remember that?)

I am also getting sick and tired of hearing the phrase "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". SICK of it! NOBODY, and I repeat NOBODY has given more aid and comfort to the enemy than George W. Bush has since 9/11 and even BEFORE 9/11: Blocking FBI investigations into the bin Ladens and the hijackers, flying the bin Laden family out of the country in the days following 9/11, giving Osama a 2 month head start after 9/11 to run and hide, waiting 441 days after 9/11 to start any investigations on WHO caused 9/11 and then even when they DID investigate it--it was a total joke and whitewash and very important questions were purposely left out, closing the bin Laden unit at the FBI, going into Iraq in the first place when it was Saudi Arabia that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from, publically announcing that finding bin Laden was unimportant when he said "I don't think about him that much to tell you the truth" and of course being long time business partners with the bin Laden family. My goodness people, if just ONE of these things I just mentioned applied to the average American, they'd be at Gitmo right now being tortured just for the association alone! But here you have Bush, in whom ALL of the above statements apply, and not ONE person says that HE gives "aid and comfort to the enemy"!!! Why doesn't Danny Bona-douchebag say about Bush what he said about Rosie? Hmmm? Why not Danny? Rosie didn't block FBI investigations, fly the bin Ladens out of the country, go to war for a lie and with the WRONG country, say that she didn't care about finding bin Laden, ignore questions at the 9/11 Commission and she sure as hell doesn't do business with the bin Ladens! It's always easier to go after others than the one who is the actual blame for it all.

I'm also getting tired of comments made to spark emotions like, "What about the families? Doesn't she care about the families?" O' Reilly plays a clip of a guy who lost a son-in-law in the war. This clip was played to set off emotions and to make everyone hostile toward 9/11 truth. While this soldiers death is tragic and I sympathize with that man, understand that Cindy Sheehan lost a son. Does Bill show the same sympathy for her? Of course not! he hates her! I bet for every caller that calls Bill and tells him they lost a son, a son-in-law, a daughter, etc... I can get five or six people to call Bill that lost relatives or friends on 9/11 that believe the government was involved! Playing this angry father-in-laws' call was NOTHING MORE than an emotional ploy to get his audience infuriated at Rosie and 9/11 truth activists. That makes O' LIElly WORSE than what he claims Rosie did, because Billo EXPLOITED this mans' pain to just have it be used as emotional bait to spark fury towards Rosie.

In closing, I thought I would compile a list of people who Danny Bonaduce would also have hanged for treason:

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear” ------Harry S. Truman

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it” -----Edward R. Murrow

“Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed -- and no republic can survive” ------John F. Kennedy

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”-----Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -----George Washington

“Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent”-----Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yeah, Danny…..YOU’RE the patriot (ha ha)………..the above people would beg to differ.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Bill Maher Discusses Bush's 9/11 Non-Reaction On Olbermann

by Larry Simons
March 28, 2007

Bill Maher is asked if there is one question he would put to Bush, what would it be? Maher says he would confront Bush on why he completely failed to immediately react after he was told America was under attack on 9/11.

It’s pretty simple Bill……Bush knew he was safe. It is UNHEARD OF for Secret Service agents NOT to react and get the President to safety….WITHOUT permission from the President. Bush knew he was safe and he was pretending that he "couldn’t" react immediately under the guise of not wanting to "upset" the kids. So, what’s the answer to NOT upsetting them?……putting their lives in danger!!!!!!! Remain in the school so that if a terrorist KNOWS you're there (and they would have, since his school visit was publically announced) they can crash a plane right through the goddamned school so they can kill the President, every child, teacher and faculty member! Yeah, that's the answer Bushy-boy! You can fool your blind followers all you want sir (I will NOT call you Mr. President, because you're not MY President) but for those of us who can think on their own...well...we don't buy your fairy tale, sir!

Come on Bill, get on board the 9/11 truth train and stop thinking it was all just a big meltdown of our defense system, military and intelligence agencies.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Bill Maher: “Plame was the kind of real life secret agent Bush dreams of being when he’s not too busy pretending to be a cowboy or a fighter pilot"

Maher calls the ousting of Valerie Plame by Bush administration “treason”

Real Time with Bill Maher
March 24, 2007


Saturday, March 24, 2007

Sean Hannity & Michael Reagan; typical dodge and deflect Neo-con cowards

Without ammunition to debate Sheen on facts of 9/11, Hannity & Reagan resort to the only thing in their arsenal…..lies, personal attacks, ridiculous comments and fascism.

By Larry Simons
March 24, 2007

Here is the clip from Friday’s “Hannity & Colmes” show on the FOX Comedy Channel:

Here is the list of personal attacks, lies, ridiculous comments and fascistic remarks from Hannity & Reagan concerning the theatrical release of “Loose Change” to be narrated by Charlie Sheen:

Personal Attacks:
Hannity: “(Sheen) ….ranting like a lunatic”
Hannity: “He (Sheen) has the right to be an idiot…”
Reagan: “…he’s (Sheen) out of his mind!”
Reagan: “…he’s (Sheen) a fool and he’s an idiot and …(inaudible)”

Lies and ridiculous comments:
Reagan: “…the left’s gonna go nuts over this like they did with Michael Moore” (THERE’S PLENTY ON THE LEFT THAT DON’T BELIEVE IN THE COVER-UP OF 9/11)

Reagan: “….jihadists and those on the other parts of the world are going use it and say….look the Americans did it to themselves…we’re innocent, we didn’t do anything..” (AND IF THEY ARE INNOCENT, THEY ALREADY KNOW THEY ARE. IF THEY’RE NOT INNOCENT, WE ATTACKED THEM AND WE’RE KILLING THEM ANYWAY…SO WHAT’S YOUR POINT MICHAEL?)

Reagan: “ say ‘Let’s debate the issues’..what? That maybe America DID bring down the towers? That all the Jews left the buildings?…You’re out of your mind to debate that!” (IN OTHER WORDS: BELIEVE EVERY WORD THAT IS TOLD TO YOU. DON’T QUESTION ANYTHING. DON’T ASK QUESTIONS. SHUT YOUR MOUTH. BE OBEDIENT SHEEP AND FOLLOW) (BY THE WAY, ALL THE JEWS DIDN’T LEAVE THE BUILDINGS…ONLY SOME DID)

Reagan: “….people who support that (conspiracy) are giving aid and comfort to the enemy who want to kill Americans” (YOU LEFT OUT THE WORD “EMBOLDENING” MICHAEL……..LOOKS LIKE YOU DIDN’T BRUSH UP ON ALL YOUR NEO-CON JARGON)

Colmes says, “I’m trying to get beyond the ‘idiot’ calling and actually have a conversation with you if that’s possible”……in which Reagan replies, “He IS an idiot!” Colmes says, “ok, we’ve established that you think he’s an idiot…that’s your level of debate”, then says, “Do you think the government would ever lie to us?” (REAGAN NEVER ANSWERS THE QUESTION. GEE….I WONDER WHY?)

Reagan: “You’re saying (to Leslie Marshall) that I’m supposed to sit back and say, “Charlie is a wonderful human being, a wonderful guy…one of the great people…or that we should debate it what he’s doing?” (AT NO POINT DURING THIS CLIP DID COLMES OR MARSHALL SAY WE SHOULD THINK SOMEONE IS WONDERFUL FOR THEM TO HAVE FREE SPEECH…..THEIR ONLY QUALIFICATION IS TO BE AN AMERICAN)

Hannity: “This will be used by America’s enemies as propaganda..” (YOU’RE THE ENEMY HANNITY)

Reagan: “What kind of a question is that? (Replying to Colmes’ question “Should we believe everything the government tells us?) Colmes replies: A good one. Reagan replies: “I think it’s a lousy question because what you’re saying is ‘I think Martin Sheen is an idiot (he means CHARLIE SHEEN) ..ah ha, but maybe we should question what’s going on here”. (IN OTHER WORDS, REAGAN IS SAYING: DON’T QUESTION YOUR GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IF YOU DO, YOU’RE UN-AMERICAN, UNPATRIOTIC AND A NUT”)

Mark Cuban Exposes O'Reilly Hypocrisy On Radio Broadcast
Hearst yellow journalism devotees Popular Mechanics, NY Post enlisted to debunk 9/11 truth again

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
March 24, 2007

Billionaire Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks who is set to finance a cinema release of Loose Change narrated by Charlie Sheen, exposed Bill O'Reilly's rampant hypocrisy concerning his coverage of the 9/11 truth movement on the Fox News host's radio show yesterday. Offering the entire 18 minute segment will probably result in Bill calling on Fox security to pay us a visit so here's a 9 minute clip instead. O'Reilly admits right off the bat that he has not even seen Loose Change, following in the trend of his fellow debunkers who have already arrived at a judgment without even checking the evidence. Bill's mind is made up! Don't bother him with the facts! This painfully underscores exactly what this whole charade represents, not an open debate on the evidence, but a cynical attempt to smear Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and Mark Cuban.

O'Reilly wastes no time in doing so by associating Loose Change with "Nazi propaganda." O'Reilly's claim might hold more weight if Dylan Avery were in control of a powerful industrial country, ran its media and commanded its standing army, but last time I checked Dylan still lives in upstate New York with his friends and a dog called Justice. "The security in the World Trade Center would have been impossible for anybody to have set charges," claims O'Reilly, oblivious to the fact that, as World Trade Center worker Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. confirms, power downs and evacuation exercises in the towers were taking place on the weekend before 9/11, giving ample opportunity for incendiary devices to be placed. WTC workers Ben Fountain and William Rodriquez also confirmed this.

At this point Popular Mechanics editor-in-chief James Meigs chimes in to state that the impact of the jetliners and the fires they caused were enough to bring down the towers, a claim that is completely contradicted by the very design architects of the World Trade Center, who are all on the record as saying they designed the building to handle multiple impacts of large jetliners. Meigs has an illustrious pedigree that puts him right up there with the professors and scholars that have studied 9/11 and the architects who designed the WTC - I just can't decide which title to give prominence, his position on the editorial staff of that bastion of scientific empiricism Entertainment Weekly or the equally respected Video Review.

Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Publishing. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst (pictured) wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition. Enter the term "yellow journalism" in the Encyclopedia Britannica and one of the first entries you will see is William Randolph Hearst. The listing attributes to Hearst a legacy of "distorted" and "lurid" reporting, and cites him as being hugely influential in fanning the flames of the Spanish-American war as a result of his newspaper's sensationalist yellow journalism. Popular Mechanics is owned by the very corporation that defined yellow journalism! During the interview, O'Reilly lauds Popular Mechanics as politically independent and non-partisan, "Popular Mechanics is not a political magazine, it's a technical magazine," when in fact it was darling of the Republican party John McCain who penned the foreword to Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths book.
In the foreword, McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did. "We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks the Arizona Senator.
Does this sound politically neutral to you?

Returning to the radio broadcast, O'Reilly brings on Mark Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks who plans to mass distribute Loose Change, and immediately makes an argument that Loose Change should be banned just as some books should be banned. Cuban points out that O'Reilly's insistence that "lunacy not be given legitimacy" by affording it any attention is contradicted by the very fact that O'Reilly is covering the controversy on his radio and TV show. O'Reilly persists with his argument of "marginalizing cranks" which Cuban refutes by asking "how many shows have you spent on this topic?" O'Reilly claims he has only done one show on 9/11 conspiracies which is patently false. O'Reilly has attacked both Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett numerous times on his television show.

Cuban's appeal to freedom of speech and his involvement in putting out previous documentaries in association with the Republican party gives strong credence to his argument that people need to hear all sides of the argument, in contrast to O'Reilly's shrill demands for censorship of a film that he hasn't even bothered to watch. O'Reilly then plays the obligatory Holocaust card to claim Loose Change is insulting to the victims, a myth that we have exposed a dozen times in the past. The representative of the largest 9/11 family victim's group, Bill Doyle who also lost his son in the attacks, is on the record as saying half of his members now have grave questions about what happened on 9/11.

"He's finished," barks O'Reilly, echoing the threat made on his TV show that narrating Loose Change will end Charlie Sheen's career, a baseless assumption considering Sheen's career has only achieved more prominence in the year since he went public on 9/11 to the Alex Jones Show. Repeating his mafia-like warning of "I'm looking out for him (Sheen) and I'm looking out for you too," O'Reilly concludes the interview by urging Cuban to rethink the project, stating "there's a lot of pain involved in this kind of a situation." With rhetoric like this, O'Reilly wouldn't have looked out of place had he been born into the Genovese Cosa Nostra family.

New York Post Tabloid Hack Johnson Attacks Sheen Again
In a related development, undeterred by the criticism of his awful yellow journalism hit piece on Thursday, in which he couldn't even get the names right of the people he was attacking, the New York Post's Richard Johnson is back for more, lauding the fact that his "exclusive" (which we have known for over a year) was confirmed by Sheen himself. The Post quotes Charlie Sheen who told Extra yesterday, "It's a story that needs to be told. It's a story about the truth, and the truth needs to be exposed." It's not just me, not just the Hollywood community [who] is standing up saying what you have given us doesn't make sense. We just want better answers."

Johnson recycles the outright lie that the controlled demolition hypothesis has been "debunked," and states that the evidence presented in Loose Change was"also soundly refuted by Popular Mechanics magazine, which shot down every single assertion made by the conspiracy theorists." In reality, crowned Kings and originators of yellow journalism Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 farce was nothing more than a strawman assault based around nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics. The arguments presented in the article and the following book have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.

One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999." As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!" "From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said." The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes. A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' applications. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran, all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele? Expect the Sheen/Loose Change/O'Donnell controversy to rumble on into next week and for the Neo-Con blowhards to sink further into the quicksand, attempting to marginalize the 9/11 truth movement yet only succeeding at making themselves look stupid and bringing more people over to our side.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Fox Bully O'Reilly Says "Loose Change" Will Destroy Sheen

3rd grade level ad hominem hit pieces can't even pin down basic facts

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
March 23, 2007

Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor featured a segment last night in which TV bully Bill O'Reilly warned Charlie Sheen that narrating Loose Change would destroy his career, amidst a cacophony of slurs, smears and Holocaust jibes, characterized by this and other hit pieces that carried all the weight of a third grader's scribbled essay paper and couldn't even pin down basic facts.

Fox featured three talking heads who all agreed with each other - O'Reilly, whitewash aficionado Gerald Posner and a barely comprehensible New York detective called Bo Dietl - this from the network that likes to call itself "fair and balanced."

Watch the video below.

Posner, a former Al Gore devotee who drank the 9/11 kool aid and immediately pledged his allegiance to Bush following the attacks, opens up by throwing in the obligatory "Holocaust denial" smear. Posner couldn't stumble over his words quickly enough to get that one in and it's somewhat pathetic to witness his ignorance of the fact that calling the other side of the argument Nazis isn't a credible debating tool anymore (not that there was anyone on the other side of the debate to rebut him). Posner's zeal on writing books insisting that no political conspiracies have ever happened, that Oswald acted alone, James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King (despite the fact he later denied it) and 9/11 was all a result of incompetence, portray a figure who is either on the payroll or has some morbid obsession with propping up government propaganda that an ever-dwindling amount of people are buying.

Polls consistently show that 90% or more believe other parties were involved in the JFK assassination so it seems the more extreme Posner has to go in smearing those who disagree with him as Holocaust deniers, the more people see through his baseless bullshit. The Holocaust card doesn't work anymore Posner, you're wasting your time. Posner is quite clearly ruffled that billionaire Mark Cuban is set to throw his weight behind Loose Change and labels it a "disgrace," without explaining why a position that 84% of the country and most of the 9/11 family members now take is a disgrace.

Bo Dietl then proceeds to give us a lecture on how the WTC towers melted and fell down like potato chips, a thoroughly scientific analysis I think we can all agree. Dietl fails to inform us of how jet fuel, which burns at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, melted steel which melts at 2700 degrees Fahrenheit. He then echoes the familiar yarn "but what about the victims." Ah yes the victims, over half of which according to Bill Doyle, the representative of the largest 9/11 victims group, have grave questions about 9/11. How about those victims of a cover-up in the very hours after 9/11 who were told that the air was safe to breathe and are now dying en masse as a result of trusting the government?

Dietl then stumbles into an attempt to explain the collapse of Building 7 at which point he is abruptly cut off by O'Reilly, who parrots the emotional rhetoric about asking questions being insulting to the victims, before cutting off Dietl again when he mentions the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. "Don't confuse anybody with facts," states O'Reilly! Exactly right Bill, because you wouldn't want anybody to find out that the FBI gave the terrorists the bomb material to attack the towers in '93 now would you?

Posner then returns to charge that 9/11 truthers make up facts, without being able to cite any examples, and then backtracks to the comfort of his Holocaust denial slur, stereotyping 9/11 truth films as "propaganda as good as anything the Third Reich turned out." Posner's one trick pony show and ad hominem "they're all Nazis" nonsense is truly laughable and in fact lends our side of the argument more credence because it exposes him as the exact thing he accuses others of being, a propagandist, in that his hyperbole of tossing out buzzwords like "Holocaust denial" appeals to the emotional reactionary human psyche and not to reasoned, sober and factual analysis. "I just don't get the hatred for the country," O'Reilly chimes in, which as everyone knows is yet another cheap pot shot that lost all its persuasive impact years ago. O'Reilly thinks he can still delude people into thinking that questioning your government equates to hating your country. O'Reilly and Dietl end by warning Sheen that he's "not gonna come back from this," insinuating that his narration of the Loose Change final cut will end his career because O'Reilly "knows the country."

Sheen more successful and popular than ever
As usual, the exact opposite is true. The success of Sheen's sitcom Two and a Half Men has only increased in the year since he went public on 9/11, and every poll shows the vast majority of the country support Sheen's viewpoint. Meanwhile, Fox News' ratings continue to sink lower and lower because they refuse to act as anything other than whores for the establishment.

From October 2004, following O'Reilly's phone sex scandal with Andrea Mackris, the ratings for his show almost halved and have never recovered. Fox News' other Neo-Con attack poodle John Gibson, who previously took a pot shot at O'Donnell for suggesting the KSM "confession" was unreliable, a sentiment echoed by all corners of the media besides the Bush administration's TV mouthpiece, also took time out to address Sheen on his "Big Story" show. Gibson parroted O'Reilly in claiming that even the discussion of 9/11 in this context is hurtful to the victims. As a rule, whenever someone does not have the facts on their side and cannot counter the evidence, they are forced to resort to emotional rhetoric in an attempt to throw a blanket over the debate.

Has there ever been a TV or newspaper hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement that doesn't heavily lean on ad hominem insults along with bias and misleading emotional rhetoric? You will never see it. News Hounds summarizes, "FOX doesn't address this issue often - they don't want to make any more people aware of the controversy - but when they do, it is ridiculed and called "garbage." It's as if they only bring it up when it's in the news elsewhere so they have to, but they immediately shoot it right back down." The smattering of hit pieces that have emerged since O'Donnell's public stance and the new angle on the Sheen story have been notable only for their 3rd grade level research and kindergarten name calling.

Richard Johnson of the New York Post couldn't even get Michael Rivero's name correct, calling him Matt, despite Rivero's name being at the very top of his website, proving Johnson didn't even check the website he was trouncing. Both CBS News and the Hollywood Reporter falsely reported that Rosie O'Donnell was involved in the production of the upcoming Loose Change movie. This is completely incorrect. O'Donnell merely used her blog to ask some questions about 9/11 and Building 7, she has never been involved in the project at any step of the way. Will CBS and the Hollywood Reporter issue retractions to clean up their atrocious journalism? Who is writing their articles, the office boy? If you can't even get basic facts right like people's names and which person is connected to a particular project, it betrays the fact that these self-proclaimed reporters aren't interested in the truth, only in conducting slapdash ad hominem attacks.

Underlining how both the fake right-wing and left-wing media are both panicking that their monopoly is being challenged by truth seekers sick and tired of partisan slant, the liberal blog Wonkette also attacked Sheen yesterday. Wonkette goes further than O'Reilly in claiming that, "Sheen will also be getting a fat check from the CIA for further distracting everyone from the non-hidden non-conspiratorial fact that everyone who was in a position to have prevented 9/11 is a drooling incompetent, and for discrediting anything anyone famous ever says about politics for the next six months." If everyone who could have prevented 9/11 was a drooling incompetent then why were none of them fired and why did some receive pay hikes?
Wonkette is just another example of the sniveling "progressive" blogosphere that spends half of its time debating things like Mitt Romney's haircut while uniformly failing to hold their precious Democrat shills like Pelosi to account on impeachment and getting out of Iraq. It's a wonder that they seem surprised by the fact that people are looking elsewhere for truth when they are lauded as the so-called "alternative," when in fact they're nothing more than a gaggle of self-important peons who think they're part of the establishment.

by Larry Simons

I'm not really attempting to add to Paul Joseph Watson's story here, (because Paul's article is EXCELLENT!) I am simply just saying a few extra things. This hit piece on 9/11 truth is a CLASSIC example of how the media and the rest of the "official account" sheeple treats the opposition. Not with fair, balanced, intellectual debate, but with character assassination, lies, distortions and like Paul said, emotional rhetoric...using the pain of the 9/11 families as a weapon to make the public at large hostile at and condemn 9/11 truth. You rarely see a debate where both sides sit down and actually discuss this rationally. The reason for that being that if both sides went head to head on the hardcore 9/11 issues and laid it all out on the table, most people would walk away either taking our position on most facts or at the very least agree with us that there are still many unanswered questions about 9/11 that were purposely ignored during the 9/11 investigations.

The problem is, people in general are busy with their lives, busy with kids, functions, meetings at work, going out to party on the weekends that they really have no time to look into these issues themselves (of the ones who at least care). So, when that rare moment comes when they sit down and switch on the TV to catch a glimpse of news and see these bullshit hit pieces, they just instantly accept it as fact. They hear Bill O' Reilly calling us "nuts" that "hate" our country and they have no reason not to believe that what O' Reilly is saying is absolutely the truth.

I have to put up with the exact same bullshit on my very own site with people posting messages for the sole purpose of just bullying, like O' Reilly does, because they know that when they actually discuss the issues of 9/11, they lose. So, they do what O' Reilly does, name call, call us America haters, "fringe" elements (lol), and make emotional statements like "they hurt the families of 9/11" in an attempt to outrage the audience against us, regardless of what the facts are. Making emotional statements like that frees people like O' Reilly from having to mention specific facts, because they know when specific facts are mentioned, their lies are exposed. This is the very reason that when O' Reilly talks about this topic (which is very rare) he hardly ever has anyone on the show from the truth movement to provide a counter argument. I wish people would wake the hell up and start to realize when all you can do is attack someone's character, lie, name call, label people as un-American, Nazi or a holocaust denier, then you have nothing...ZILCH in which to shoot down their specific claims. I agree with Paul Joseph Watson when he said this very technique gives our argument credence, because it shows that if all the opposition can do is resort to childish and unintelligent behavior....we win simply by default, not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of facts that we have on our side.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

O'Reilly's Foxing Of Facts Knows No Bounds

What torture? What dead Iraqis? What protests? What war?

Steve Watson
March 21, 2007

Bill O'Reilly's pathetic attempts to counter Sunsara Taylor of anti-war organisation "The World Can't Wait" on his show this week again reveal how Fox News and other Neocon media outlets like it exist purely to silence anyone who criticizes the Bush Administration on any issue.
O'Reilly exposed his own agenda to simply denounce everything any critic ever says as being wrong or untrue, by suggesting that Ms Taylor claimed the government has tortured children by crushing their testicles. O'Reilly went on to denounce Taylor as an unpatriotic and accused her of slander.
It was clear to anyone with half a brain that Taylor was referring to comments previously made by Bush attorney John Yoo, co author of the PATRIOT ACT and various controversial torture advocating memos.

During a debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Here is the audio of the dialogue between Yoo and Cassel:

When Ms Taylor referred to Yoo's comments however, O'Reilly demanded to know "what small child was that," badgering her for a name or other specifics, when clearly she had not said it happened, only that Yoo had stated that it could if Bush ordered it.
O'Reilly foxed the facts further still from reality in a later segment, asking Kirsten Powers if she thinks it's patriotic to go on national TV and accuse the government of mashing a baby's testicles? O'Reilly started to tick off on his fingers 1. she doesn't know who the baby is, 2. she didn't see the baby's testicles being mashed, 3. she can't produce the baby or the baby's name, clearly attempting to suggest that Taylor was making the entire scenario up along with everything else she said.
Sunsara Taylor IS displaying patriotism by raising this issue because she was attempting to alert brainwashed FOX viewers to the fact that the John Yoo and the Bush Administration have clearly advocated genocide against American citizens.
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children? Georgetown Law Professor David Cole has written, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
Last September the Senate officially gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror when it passed new detainee legislation.
So in his attempts to FOX these facts, O'Reilly is covering up abuse of power at the highest levels.

O'Reilly also seemed to suggest that there has never been any evidence of the US using torture on prisoners, asking "what torture?" and demanding that Ms Taylor name names. When she cited verified examples of rendition and US torture, such as in the case of Maher Arar, who has said he was chained and shackled by U.S. authorities for 11 days for interrogation and then flown to Syria, where he was tortured and forced to make false confessions, O'Reilly simply responded with "do you believe that man"?
Clearly the Canadian government believed him, an official inquiry determined that Arar indeed was tortured before clearing him of any terrorist links or suspicions.
When Ms Taylor raised the issue of torture at Abu Ghraib, O'Reilly raised his voice and asked "who ordered Abu Ghraib?" clearly in the hope that Ms Taylor would not be able to respond, to which she did by citing the sworn testimony of Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, that torture came from the very top. O'Reilly then bizarrely responded by asking Taylor to "show him the documentation", to which she replied "you are supposed to be the reporter".
Before this O'Reilly had questioned the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the war, citing the UN figure of 59,000 and questioning Ms Taylor's referencing the 600,000 figure from The Lancet, which is considered to be one of the 'core' general medical journals.
Fox watchdog website News Hounds hit the nail on the head stating:
O'Reilly scoffed and dismissed it as "far left," his answer to anything that proves him wrong. Taylor could have backed up her figure with the October 2006 confirmation from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which says
Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality EstimatesMortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods
As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion
O'Reilly then also asked why no one was protesting the Iraq War, despite the fact that in the last week hundreds of thousands have poured onto the streets all over the country to protest.
What torture? What dead Iraqis? What protests? you almost expect O'Reilly to ask "What war? Show me documentation to prove there is a war".
O'Reilly concluded by calling Sunsara Taylor "hysterical" and stating "You are simply a woman who doesn't know what she's talking about".
O'Reilly and his ilk serve no purpose other than to bolster the criminality of Neocon Whitehouse regime by silencing government critics regardless of the issue. They baselessly deny the reality of any provable fact or event in order to pass over any controversial issue with the pretence that they have done their duty as reporters and covered it.
This is your mainstream media, happy to serve government illegality and thus aid the destruction and degradation of the country.

Watch the full O'Reilly/Sunsara Taylor interview below as well as the later segment.

Editor's note:


Wednesday, March 21, 2007

It's STILL the oil: Secret Condi Meeting on Oil Before Invasion

by Greg Palast
March 18, 2007

Four years ago this week, the tanks rolled for what President Bush originally called, "Operation Iraqi Liberation" -- O.I.L. I kid you not.

And it was four years ago that, from the White House, George Bush, declaring war, said, "I want to talk to the Iraqi people." That Dick Cheney didn't tell Bush that Iraqis speak Arabic . well, never mind. I expected the President to say something like, "Our troops are coming to liberate you, so don't shoot them." Instead, Mr. Bush told, the Iraqis, "Do not destroy oil wells."

Nevertheless, the Bush Administration said the war had nothing to do with Iraq's oil. Indeed, in 2002, the State Department stated, and its official newsletter, the Washington Post, repeated, that State's Iraq study group, "does not have oil on its list of issues." But now, we've learned that, despite protestations to the contrary, Condoleezza Rice held a secret meeting with the former Secretary-General of OPEC, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi, and offered Chalabi the job of Oil Minister for Iraq. (It is well established that the President of the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne.)

In all the chest-beating about how the war did badly, no one seems to remember how the war did very, very well -- for Big Oil. The war has kept Iraq's oil production to 2.1 million barrels a day from pre-war, pre-embargo production of over 4 million barrels. In the oil game, that's a lot to lose. In fact, the loss of Iraq's 2 million barrels a day is equal to the entire planet's reserve production capacity.

In other words, the war has caused a hell of a supply squeeze -- and Big Oil just loves it. Oil today is $57 a barrel versus the $18 a barrel price under Bill "Love-Not-War" Clinton. Since the launch of Operation Iraqi Liberation, Halliburton stock has tripled to $64 a share -- not, as some believe, because of those Iraq reconstruction contracts -- peanuts for Halliburton. Cheney's former company's main business is "oil services." And, as one oilman complained to me, Cheney's former company has captured a big hunk of the rise in oil prices by jacking up the charges for Halliburton drilling and piping equipment.

But before we shed tears for Big Oil's having to hand Halliburton its slice, let me note that the value of the reserves of the five biggest oil companies more than doubled during the war to $2.36 trillion. And that was the plan: putting a new floor under the price of oil. I've have that in writing. In 2005, after a two-year battle with the State and Defense Departments, they released to my team at BBC Newsnight the "Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." Now, you might think our government shouldn't be writing a plan for another nation's oil. Well, our government didn't write it, despite the State Department seal on the cover. In fact, we discovered that the 323-page plan was drafted in Houston by oil industry executives and consultants.

The suspicion is that Bush went to war to get Iraq's oil. That's not true. The document, and secret recordings of those in on the scheme, made it clear that the Administration wanted to make certain America did not get the oil. In other words, keep the lid on Iraq's oil production -- and thereby keep the price of oil high. Of course, the language was far more subtle than, "Let's cut Iraq's oil production and jack up prices." Rather, the report uses industry jargon and euphemisms which require Iraq to remain an obedient member of the OPEC cartel and stick to the oil-production limits -- "quotas" -- which keep up oil prices.

The Houston plan, enforced by an army of occupation, would, "enhance [Iraq's] relationship with OPEC," the oil cartel. And that's undoubtedly why Condoleezza Rice asked Fadhil Chalabi to take charge of Iraq's Oil Ministry. As former chief operating officer of OPEC, the oil cartel, Fadhil was a Big Oil favorite, certain to ensure that Iraq would never again allow the world to slip back to the Clinton era of low prices and low profits. (In investigating for BBC, I was told by the former chief of the CIA's oil unit that he'd met with Fadhil regarding oil at Bush's request. Fadhil recently complained to the BBC. He denied the meeting with the Bush emissary in London because, he noted, he was secretly meeting that week in Washington with Condi!)

Fadhil, by the way, turned down Condi's offer to run Iraq's Oil Ministry. Ultimately, Iraq's Oil Ministry was given to Fadhil's fellow tribesman, Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted bank swindler and neo-con idol. But whichever Chalabi is nominal head of Iraq's oil industry in Baghdad, the orders come from Houston. Indeed, the oil law adopted by Iraq's shaky government this month is virtually a photocopy of the "Options" plan first conceived in Texas long before Iraq was "liberated."

In other words, the war has gone exactly to plan -- the Houston plan. So forget the naïve cloth-rending about a conflict gone haywire. Exxon-Mobil reported a record $10 billion profit last quarter, the largest of any corporation in history. Mission Accomplished.

Greg Palast is a New York Times-bestselling author and a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corporation as well as the British newspaper The Observer.

thanks to my friend Eugene for this story

Sunday, March 18, 2007

My Top 10 Smoking Guns that 9/11 was an Inside Job

by Larry Simons
March 18, 2007

This was a tough task. Finding 10 smoking guns of 9/11? No.....narrowing it down to 10. I left out important smoking guns like "No Arab names on flight manifests on ALL 4 planes", the "PNAC (Project For the New American Century)", the "Bush-bin Laden connection", "Advanced warnings" and the "NIST report". Here, I narrow it down to 10. At different times some of these smoking guns have been higher/lower on my list. I ranked them mainly by plausibility that these things could have happened outside of government complicity. You may not agree with my rankings, and that's ok. But, we all should agree on one thing.....9/11 was an inside job.

10. FBI agents warned off anti-terror cases

Whistleblowing FBI agents have gone public alleging that they were threatened and impeded in certain anti-terrorism investigations in the months prior to 9/11.

Agent: FBI Could Have Prevented 9-11

WASHINGTON – A veteran FBI agent Thursday charged that corruption inside the bureau derailed investigations that could have averted the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11. His lawyers said the FBI had evidence that the World Trade Center was a possible terrorist target.
In a memo written 91 days before Sept. 11, Special Agent Robert G. Wright Jr. warned that Americans would die as a result of the FBI's failure to investigate terrorists living in this country.
Wright went public at a press conference even though FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered him to stay in Chicago and threatened him with criminal prosecution if he spoke publicly about the agency's wrongdoing.
"The FBI is not protecting the American people," declared Wright at a conference sponsored by his attorneys at the public interest law firm Judicial Watch.
"... [There is] virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing in the United States. Unfortunately, more terrorist attacks against the American interests, coupled with the loss of American lives, will have to occur before those in power give this matter the urgent attention it deserves..."

Newsmax, 31 May 2002

9. The 9/11 Commission Report: "a 571 page lie"

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) was a supposedly independent all-encompassing investigation into the events of 9/11. Such an enquiry was initially resisted by the Bush administration who saw it as an waste of resources. When public pressure finally forced them to act, the administration placed many obstacles in the enquiry's path, including giving it extremely meager funding and by putting Henry Kissinger in charge. Kissinger resigned facing questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Kissinger resigns as head of 9/11 commission

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Facing questions about potential conflicts of interest, Henry Kissinger resigned Friday as chairman of the September 11 commission.
President Bush named Kissinger to lead the 10-member commission last month, dropping his longstanding opposition to an independent probe of the events leading up to the September 11 terrorist attacks... (CNN, 13 December 2004)

The report, which was published in August 2004, has been criticized by philosopher and former Professor of Theology David Ray Griffin, who has written two books and given lectures on the subject of the attacks. In his book The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, he dissects the official enquiry, and has described it as a "571 page lie". Griffin has summarised more than 100 points from the report that he describes as implicit or explicit lies, some of which include:

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air...
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent...
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October...
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews...
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times...
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane...
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane...
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president...
112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration...
114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest...

Excerpts from "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie" by Prof. David Ray Griffin

8. CIA Insider Trading

Suspicious trading occurs on the stock of American and United, the two airlines hijacked in the 9/11 attacks. "Between September 6th an d 7th, the Chicago Board Options Exchange [sees] purchases of 4,744 put option contracts [a speculation that the stock will go down] in UAL versus 396 call options---where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would [net] a profit of $5 million once the carrier's share price [dive] after September 11. On September 10, 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings, [are] purchased in Chicago. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines [see] such trading in their put options." One analyst later says, "I saw put-call numbers higher than I've seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets." (AP 9-18-01)

"To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also [learned] that the firm used to buy many of the 'put' options...on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by 'Buzzy' Krongard, now executive director of the CIA. Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown, Inc., which was brought by Deutsche Bank. "His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust---Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world." (Independant, 10-14-01)

The Chicago Board Options Exchange sees suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley between September 6-10, 2001, which are two of the largest WTC tenants. In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option contracts in its shares are bought each day. Then the total for the three days before the attacks is 2,157. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, see 12, 215 put options bought between September 7-10, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day. Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, speaking of the trading on Morgan Stanley and other companies, says, "This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence." (ABC News, 9-20-01)

7. Cheney's Stand-down Order

In giving evidence to the 9/11 Congressional Commission, and despite coercive questioning to the contrary, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta described how Dick Cheney was informed well in advance that a plane was headed for the Pentagon but consciously failed to issue a shoot-down order. From the testimony:

"There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane [headed for the Pentagon] is 50 miles out [...] The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant."

Here is Norman Mineta's testimony at the 9/11 hearings:

6. The Controlled Demolition of WTC 1 & 2/ Bombs in buildings

For the first and only three times in history, steel-frame buildings collapsed due to "fire". The black smoke clearly visible was indicative of a cool, inefficient, oxygen starved fire, rather than the towering inferno that the official account would have us believe. The fires were soon contained by firefighters, but the buildings stood for only 102 and 56 minutes respectively before collapsing.
The official story of the "pancake theory", whereby fire induced structural failure caused each floor in turn to collapse into the one below in cascade, is incompatible with the fact that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 happened at near free-fall speed (around 10 seconds). Even if we suppose that a "pancake" collapse is theoretically credible, it's speed must still be significantly less than that of free-fall, as each floor, support and buttress will provide resistance to any falling material. Then we must further suppose that all this can happen in near-perfect symmetry, twice in a row.
Many witnesses have come forward to describe how they witnessed bombs exploding in the buildings including firefighters, police, maintenance staff and other survivors. The concrete from the buildings was pulverized into the super-fine crystalline dust that covered lower Manhattan, an effect only expected of high-explosives. Many anomalous explosions and smoke puffs are visible throughout both collapses.
watch film on this link of the many reports of bombs/explosions


NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. "I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too," said Isaac.
... Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade Center towers.
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.
"It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs," said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11...
American Free Press, 2005

Senior north tower janitor William Rodriguez was heralded as a hero for saving the lives of numerous people trapped in the burning tower. He claims that his statements of explosions in the basement before the impact of the plane were consistently cut from his network television interviews, and his evidence to the same effect given to the official 9/11 Commission disregarded. Said Rodriguez in a telephone conversation:

"What really upsets me is that we have all these people coming forward with credible testimony about explosions and we have been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission and the major media... [T]he American press, they have locked their doors on all of us, never allowing our stories to surface or even trying to investigate why the 9/11 Commission didn't bother to include out statements in the final report... What does that tell you?"
William Rodriguez

In his paper entitled "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?", Professor of Physics Steven Jones of Bringham Young University, Utah calls for a "serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges [explosives]," and includes key points which Jones and many others feel have not been addressed by the FEMA, NIST, or 9-11 Commission Reports. He goes into detail about the large pools of molten metal that were observed for days under all three buildings.

Video clips provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero. The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location....
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.
I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.
Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water... On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, 2005

Neither the 9/11 Commission, FEMA or NIST reports mention the molten metal.

5. The Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

The case for controlled demolition, as opposed to fire, is strongest for WTC 7. The similarly constructed 47 story building was not hit by a plane, yet five hours after the collapse of towers 1 & 2, and with seemingly little damage save minor fires on two floors, came straight down into its own footprint in a perfectly symmetrical near-freefall collapse of around 7 seconds. Its collapse has all the hallmarks of, and can only realistically be explained by, a conventional controlled demolition. As outlined by David Ray Griffin in his paper entitled "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True", these hallmarks are:

Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings.... [Indeed, a classic "crimp" is visible in the centre of WTC 7's roof seconds before it collapses, indicative of a central support column being blown out in advance of the main demolition, a standard practice to induce the building to fall slightly inwards on itself - Chike]
Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance.
Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high.... The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns. According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped" (Kean and Hamilton, 2004...)
Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato." The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: "Our DREXSTM systems... segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.
The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be "chopped up into... sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero".
Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles...
Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy...
Horizontal Ejections ["squibs"]: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that "[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers" (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7)...
Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.
Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions.. [T]here is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.
Molten Steel: [A] feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns...

Prof. David Ray Griffin, "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True"

The 9/11 Commission sidesteps the whole mystery of WTC 7 by declaring the collapse out of its scope. Similarly, the 2005 NIST report also does not investigate WTC 7; a separate investigation has been delayed and is pending. The FEMA report's best hypothesis, that of fire-damage, is by their own admission an unlikely one:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
FEMA report, 2002
FEMA does not consider the hypothesis of controlled demolition.

4. Larry Silverstein's Confession: "Pull It"

In September 2002, complex owner Larry Silverstein stated on a TV documentary that he gave the order to "pull" WTC 7, accepted industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it [WTC Building 7].' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Larry Silverstein on America Rebuilds, PBS

As Paul Joseph Watson points out:
We know that the term "pull it" means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the SAME documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull building six."

Rigging a building this size for demolition is a painstaking process that takes weeks at the very least. After years of stonewalling, in 2005 Silverstein finally explained himself through his spokesman in a debunking article on the US State Department's website, where he claimed that by "it" he was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. Even if we leave aside the fact that contextually this makes little sense, the following still needs to be explained:

The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 [at this time].
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."
And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
Paul Joseph Watson, Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges, 2005

Silverstein received a $7.1 billion insurance payout based on an obscure terrorism clause in a policy taken out five months before the attack, more than doubling his initial investment.

3. Pentagon Hole: Too Small For a Plane

There are SO many problems with the Pentagon story, I can’t even begin to tell them all here, but I will list the main 3: 1) The physical evidence 2) Inconsistencies in witness testimony 3) Surveillance cameras

Physical evidence

The hole in the façade of the Pentagon was no more than 16-18 feet wide. Supporters of the official story like Popular Mechanics argue that it is a FACT that the hole was at least 75 feet wide, but no photo shows this. James Meigs of Popular Mechanics appears on The O’ Reilly Factor on August 7, 2006 and tells O’ Reilly that the hole in the Pentagon was 90 feet wide. Well, come on guys, which is it? 75 or 90? Another laughable conclusion PM comes to is that upon impact, Flight 77’s wings snapped off and folded back against the fuselage of the plane and went into the building with the plane. The problem with this explanation is that if the wings did snap off at impact, the laws of kinetic energy tells us that the wings would have propelled FORWARD in the same direction as the rest of the plane, the same way that if a car strikes a telephone pole and the side mirror breaks off at impact, that mirror will propel forward, not backward. This being the case, the wings still should have made impact damage to the exterior of the Pentagon. Being that the wings are attached to the strongest part of a plane, the engines, the damage would have been severe, being that the plane was traveling at roughly 500 mph.
The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 125 feet wide. Why was there no wing damage? Even PM’s argument contradicts the physical evidence. They say the hole was 75 feet wide, or 90 feet, depending on who’s the PM spokesman is at the time. Even if the wings "broke off" and went in with the plane, why would this create a 75-90 foot hole? If the wings did NOT break off, that creates a 125-foot (at least) or even wider hole because the plane went in at an angle. Either way, PM is clueless on this issue and consistantly give inaccurate numbers.
Here's what they had to say about it:

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The major problem with this analysis is that the weakest part of the plane is the NOSE of a plane, yet THAT was able to punch a "cartoon-like outline of itself" into the reinforced concrete, but the strongest part of the plane, the engines, was NOT able to. Also, keep in mind that the entire nation saw two planes hit the WTC towers and amazingly they DID punch "cartoon-like outlines" of themselves into STEEL. Sozen says one wing hit the ground and the other was "sheared" off by the force of the impact. How does he KNOW one of the wings hit the ground? Did he see the plane hit the Pentagon? How else would you know this unless you witnessed this? How does the wing hitting the ground automatically explain away that it didn't penetrate the Pentagon? Is he saying that it hit the ground and "broke off"? If that's what he's saying, then he didn't say those exact words. If it broke off upon hitting the ground, where's the wing? He said the other wing was "sheared off". Where's THAT wing? Shouldn't BOTH wings be laying outside of the Pentagon? Why did we never see pictures of the broken off wings? Did the wings vaporize too like they said the rest of the plane did? If the fire was hot enough to vaporize the plane, why didn't it vaporize the Pentagon windows? Why didn't it vaporize office equipment (filing cabinets, computers, and even a book laying on top of a wooden stool) that you can clearly see inside one of the Pentagon offices after the collapse? Why didn't it vaporize the bodies of the victims? (It was reported that all but 2 victims were identified by fingerprints). It’s amazing that there are actually people out there that accept the Popular Mechanics fairy tale.

75-90 Foot hole??? Where????? (Keep in mind, the Pentagon from ground to roof is 77 feet)

Here’s what PM says about the debris:

Flight 77 Debris CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

First of all, let me clarify one thing. We do NOT claim there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. We simply say all the "debris" left at the site was in very small pieces, making it very convenient for unidentified men to walk right up and pick it up off the ground. Pieces of debris like the one below have been used by the official account supporters to say that it really was AA 77 that hit the Pentagon because you can clearly see the red paint from one of the letters on the debris. First of all this red paint makes out no discernible letter from the American Airlines logo. Second, there are no burn/fire marks on it, no scrape marks showing it was just involved in a huge explosion. After all, we are told by the official account that the plane went into the building and vaporized. So, how did this piece escape the vaporization? Why was it laying so far from the impact point? Why is this piece of metal appear to be so flimsy/thin? Look at it. It looks like a large coke can ripped apart.

Only 2 possible explanations exist for me about this debris: It was planted, or whatever struck the Pentagon was a smaller scale lighter aircraft, like a Global Hawk. This is why Operation Northwoods is so important to the truth movements’ analysis of 9/11. Because in this document, it explains how our own Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962 had planned terrorism on Americans to use as a pretext to enter war with Cuba. One of the acts of terror by our own government was this, "An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time a duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the select passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone." And this was 1962! Imagine what they could have done 39 years later with advanced technology, trillions more dollars and a more corrupt CIA. This scenario (from Northwoods) also explains what they could have done with the actual people who were supposedly on Flight 77. I also love how Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" Held parts of uniforms from crewmembers??? Amazing. A plane can vaporize, but not the mighty material from the uniforms of crewmembers. Also, it was reported that all but 2 people were identified by the fingerprints. Again…amazing. A plane incinerates into non-existence but the skin of the victims somehow is able to conquer plane-vaporizing fire.
This is what Popular Mechanics says happened by the LANDING GEAR? A PERFECTLY ROUND hole was caused by LANDING GEAR? It's very unlikely the nose of a plane did this either, since this hole was the SIXTH wall the nose had to come through. The nose...the weakest part of the plane...went through SIX walls and then just vaporized into dust? Why didn't it vaporize before entering the SIXTH wall? This is simply NOT believable.

The above photo shows something very interesting. I got the top half of this picture from an "official version" website. The red area is supposed to show the portion of the Pentagon that Flight 77 penetrated. There are at least 4 glaring problems with this analysis. First, the length of the damage in the above photo is not wide enough, since Flight 77 entered the Pentagon from an angle, as illustrated in the bottom photo. When objects come in at an angle, the length of damage will be MUCH wider. The red diagram in the bottom picture where the wings are illustrates how wide the damage in the Pentagon should have been. Another problem with the red portion in the top half of the picture is that you can CLEARLY see that portions of the wall that aren't even damaged are shaded red as if that is part of the impacted section. Look at the picture on top. Look on the right side of the red shaded area. You see that small rectangle-shaped red-shaded area---NOT damaged...and right below that, you see one of the columns of the Pentagon still IN TACT, but yet they have it shaded in red as if it has been impacted! You have to look REAL close at these lies people, or sometimes they can fool you just like slight of hand during a card trick. Second, the top photo doesn't illustrate any damage that the tail of the plane would have made. The tail of a Boeing 757 is 44 feet high. 44 feet is over HALF the size of the total height of the Pentagon wall (77 feet), so the damage from the tail should have been higher than the very middle of the Pentagon's height, even if the tail of the plane was sitting on the ground! But, obviously, the tail is attached to the fuselage, which raises the height of the tail in proportion to it entering the Pentagon, which would make the tail damage even MUCH higher than the mid-way point of the Pentagon's height. The photo above shows damage MUCH lower than than mid-height of the Pentagon. A third glaring error in the above photo is that it is deceiving in that it shows the Pentagon so far away that you don't really notice the cable spools that were sitting right in front of the Pentagon during the attack. Had the photo been a much closer shot like the one shown below, you could easily notice the cable spools and that they are untouched and unmoved. This is a big problem, since the plane would have to have been flying very low, that it would have been virtually impossible to not hit those spools and drag them into the building with it.

There is absolutely no way the plane could have missed hitting these cable spools on it's way into the Pentagon, but in virtually EVERY picture you see on "official version" sites where the scene has been re-created to show their version of what happened, these spools are missing. One might say, "yes, but the wings can slide right by that space between the spools and the undamaged area". Yes, true, they could, but you're forgetting one very important thing.....the engines! The engines would hit the spools! A 4th major problem with the split photo above is that the lawn is practically untouched. The "official versions'" plane would have been flying so close to the ground, the lawn would have been damaged in some way. The plane skidding across it or jet blasts damaging the grass would have happened. But as we look at the picture, it shows a pristine lawn, as if it had just been freshly cut. How can this be? Anyone who buys into this fairy tale will simply believe anything.

Inconsistencies with eyewitness testimony

All I can say about this is: You have people like the one mentioned above that held in their hands the mighty, explosion/fireproof uniforms of the crewmembers. Others say they actually saw the passengers in the windows of the plane. Yep, a speeding 500mph plane that nobody was expecting to see, and yet they looked up and saw people in the windows. I saw a video clip about a year ago of an American Airlines plane coming in for a landing and as it went by, you could not see people in the windows…and this plane as I mentioned was LANDING, going MUCH slower. Most of the testimonies just can’t be believed because what they said they saw is just impossible. Some said they saw a missile, some said they saw a smaller plane, etc… The list goes on and on. The bottom line is: If this were American Airlines Flight 77, EVERYONE, EVERYONE would have seen a LARGE aircraft and it would have been very very loud and it would have been a big blur. The jet blasts from the engines would have literally thrown cars into the air since the plane was as low as it was and as close to the highway as it was. I’ve seen what jet blasts do. They literally throw cars into the air. None of this happened on 9/11. Too many inconsistencies with witness testimony to put your faith in these people alone.

Surveillance cameras

The Pentagon is the most videotaped and surveilled building on Earth…and ALL we have is those bogus, bullshit video stills and one camera shot of the side of the Pentagon that were released? This is simply not believable that this is ALL the footage they have of this. In my research, I have learned that Federal officials have at least 80 videos of what really hit the Pentagon. Why can’t we see this? Why? First they said it would be too traumatic for us to see it, yet we saw the planes hit the towers over and over. Then, they said they couldn’t release them because the Moussaui trial was going on and videos were not released as a matter of National Security. Well, that damned trial is over…….can we see them now???? WHY NOT? This blatant and insulting cover-up in keeping these videos from us is in and of itself a smoking gun of 9/11.

Rumsfeld: Smoking gun or gaffe?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on 12 October 2001 by Lyric Wallwork Winik a columnist for Parade magazine when he said this, "It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building (Pentagon) and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

2. Presidential Secret Service behavior/Bush’s behavior and his lies/ How was it known Bush was safe in the school?

"Victory clicked into my mind," Mr. Bush told The Times. "The one thing that became certain is that we wouldn't let this stand. I mean, there was no question in my mind that we'd respond."I wasn't sure who the attacker was. But if somebody is going to attack America, I knew that my most immediate job was to protect America by finding him and getting them."


Why was Bush allowed to visit Booker Elementary on 9/11?
Bush was in his car on the way to Booker Elementary School when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. CIA Director George Tenet declared the impact a deliberate attack with "bin Laden's fingerprints all over it" moments after being informed by cell phone.

With Bush's location given out by the media the days before, an airport only four miles from the school he was visiting, and the CIA Director stating the impact was intentional, why did the Secret Service allow Bush's visit to go ahead?
Despite the fact that the president was on a publicly advertised media call, the Secret Service made no move to relocate him to a secure location until 30 minutes after the second plane hit the WTC.

Why didn't the hijackers try to crash a plane into Booker Elementary when it was publicly known that the President would be there and that the school is only 3.5 miles away from an International Airport?
It was reported that 2 of the hijackers stayed at a Holiday Inn on September 7 just BLOCKS from where Bush stayed (Colony Beach) when he arrived in Florida. If terrorists were intelligent enough to outsmart the most powerful military and defense agencies in the entire world, don’t you think knowing where Bush was in Florida would have been very easy, especially since his trip to the Sarasota school was publically announced on local Florida TV on Sept. 7, the VERY day these 2 terrorists were at the Holiday Inn? Why would President Bush being in the SAME city as they were be unimportant to them? What would be greater for the terrorists to not only attack America, but to kill its President? Wouldn’t this be the icing on the cake for them? What are the odds of two out of only 19 terrorists being in the EXACT SAME city as the President on the EXACT same day it is announced on TV that the President will be arriving in Florida, and yet they don’t take advantage of that opportunity for an assassination? The airport in Sarasota was literally just blocks away….and they wouldn’t attempt to try to crash the plane into the school? Why?

If protestors knew Bush was going to be in town this day and even knew his route, why couldn't the terrorists know this too?
"Sept. 11 was supposed to be what White House strategists call a "soft" day -- no big speeches, just a few events to highlight Bush’s education plans.The 20-minute drive from the hotel was routine, although a few protesters waved signs about the administration's policy on offshore oil drilling." -St. Petersburg Times (09/08/02)

Why did Bush implement a military response when he just said he thought the 1st crash was just an "accident" and how did he do it since he said he "didn't have time to think about it"?
"Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared." -Bush
"I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it." -Bush 12/04/01
------oh really? Is THAT why you stayed at the school for another HALF HOUR after being told of the 2nd plane striking the WTC? It’s on TAPE that you sat on your ass reading after knowing of BOTH strikes on the WTC. WHEN were you "whisked" off???

Why didn't the Secret Service evacuate the President of the United States out of Booker Elementary when the United States was being attacked by terrorists? Why did they let him continue with the meaningless photo-op?
Exactly! It is the sole duty of the Secret Service to get the President to safety and not ask questions, ask permission to do so or to fear for their own lives while doing so. This didn’t happen on 9/11 at the Sarasota school. Even after the 2nd plane hit the WTC, the Secret Service did not respond. Remember people, the Secret Service does NOT ask permission to protect the President. It is their duty to REACT when they know or feel the President is in danger. Knowing that Bush’s visit to the school was very publicized and knowing NOW that the 2nd tower of the WTC was struck, it would have been obvious that this was a terrorist attack. But yet, even STILL they did not react. Another interesting thing to keep in mind is the fact that 5 days later on Meet The Press, Cheney had this to say to Tim Russert, "The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was….." and then Cheney stopped himself, never finishing that sentence. Interesting. The Secret Service has open lines with the FAA, and we all know from the NORAD’s own timeline of events as you will see below that the FAA FIRST knew of the first hijacking at 8:40am. The story changes in the 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission says that the FAA first knew of Flight 11’s hijacking at 8:25 am. How can BOTH reports be right? And no matter which one is correct, why didn’t the Secret Service get President Bush the hell out of that school at 8:25 am or 8:40 am, since they had open lines with the FAA, according to Cheney?

What time did Bush leave Booker Elementary and why wasn't Booker Elementary School evacuated after President Bush left just incase terrorists had planned to attack Bush at the school?
Very good question here. I remember on 9/11 when I picked up my OWN child after hearing the Pentagon was struck. I remembered thinking, "Maybe I’m overreacting". But, when I arrived at the school, EVERY parent was picking up their child and it was very chaotic…..and this was on the very day of 9/11, 3 ½ years BEFORE I believed our government was involved in 9/11. And here we have the very school that Bush was at, not evacuated, not told by the Secret Service or any other government official TO evacuate. Isn’t this just a tad unbelievable?

Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to make a speech from the school and not evacuate him to a secure location when they knew a terrorist attack was going on for 25 minutes already?
Hmmmm, I thought Bush said he was "whisked off" and didn’t have time to think about it. Apparently, the definition of "whisked off" on 9/11 meant to wait around 30 minutes first.
Why isn't there any Secret Service agents or other armed guards escorting Bush up the steps to Air Force One or why wasn’t Air Force One accompanied by fighter jets upon leaving the school when our country is under attack and the President's life might be in danger?

Knowing that at least TWO planes had slammed into the twin towers in "an apparent terrorist attack"—the very words spoken by Bush just MINUTES earlier while still at the school in Florida, why wasn’t Air Force One accompanied by fighter jets when it left the Sarasota school when there was NO way of knowing if there was a plane in the sky in the Florida area filled with terrorists who had not hijacked their plane yet?
Here's yet another in a long list of broken procedures that day. Are we to accept this was just mindboggling incompetence by our top government officials that they would not give our President fighter jet protection of Air Force One when the VERY act of terror that was being inflicted on our country at that VERY moment was by the use of AIRPLANES?? Bush KNEW there was a hijacking going on at this moment. He just got done giving a speech at the school saying ".....this apparent terrorist attack on our country", and yet he gets on a plane WITHOUT protection knowing there might be more planes in the air? The Secret Service had to know there were more planes----they had open lines with the FAA, according to Cheney---RIGHT????? This is what officially made this a smoking gun, and a CLEAR indication that BUSH KNEW!

Bush claims twice to have seen the first WTC plane crash on TV in his holding room at the school, how could he have seen this when he hadn't even arrived at the school yet?
"The first airplane hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m., as the president's motorcade crossed the John Ringling Causeway on the way to Booker Elementary from the Colony Beach & Tennis Resort on Longboat Key." -Washington Times (10/08/02)
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident," Bush. -White House (12/04/01)
"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway," Bush. -White House (01/05/02)

Bush said this 3 months after the attacks
"That's a tough decision to make, but you've got to understand that I was the commander in chief and the president of a nation that had just been attacked by four aircraft, and we didn't know if other aircraft were coming or not," he said. -ABC (12/05/01)
Exactly! You don’t KNOW if more are coming-----so WHY do you put every child and staff at the school at risk when YOU DON’T KNOW if more are coming????

1. The Military Stand Down and the NORAD drills

When did NORAD receive a shoot-down authorization?
"A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania." - 9/11 Commission

This is what filmmaker Alex Jones had to say about the stand down of the military and the NORAD drills on 9/11:
No single smoking gun has yet been forwarded to explain why air defenses categorically reversed Standard Operating Procedure and failed to respond to hijacked jetliners.
Until now. More and more individuals are looking at the facts and highlighting exercise drills that took place on the morning of 9/11.
It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.
The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked.
The drill scenario also explains a comment made by air traffic control personnel which was featured in a July 2004 BBC television report. The controller is told that a hijacked airliner is heading for New York and responds by saying, "is this real world or an exercise?"
Alex Jones was one of the first to highlight the wargames in his documentary film 'Masters of Terror', which was released in August 2002. Alex explains why the Associated Press later had to admit the fact that the CIA were running drills of crashing planes into buildings on the morning of 9/11.
What were the drills called and what was their nature?
1) OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE: This was planned months in advance of 9/11 and ensured that on the morning of 9/11, jet fighters were removed from patrolling the US east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada, therefore reducing the amount of fighter planes available to protect the east coast.
2) BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: Alex Jones first reported on this back in May when Rudolph Giuliani let the details of it slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. FEMA arrived in New York on September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices of a 'biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. This explains why Tom Kenney of FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told Dan Rather of CBS News that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue. Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC Building 7. As we reported back in January, Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in history had previously collapsed from fire damage?
3) OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11 deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be intercepted in time.
4) OPERATION NORTHERN GUARDIAN: The details of this exercise are still scant but it is considered to be part of Vigilant Guardian, relating to simulating hijacked planes in the north eastern sector.
5) OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR: This was referenced in Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies'. It is thought to have been the 'attack' component of the Vigilant Guardian exercise.
Another example of how air defenses were purposefully kept preoccupied so they couldn't protect New York was reported by in December of 2003. The Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing, based at Atlantic City International Airport in Pomona, were just eight minutes away from New York and could have intercepted both Flight 11 and Flight 175.
Under NORAD procedures that date to the Cold War, two F-16 fighters from the 177th were parked around the clock on the Atlantic City runway. Pilots waited in a nearby building, ready to scramble.
But on the morning of 9/11, the F-16's were performing bombing runs over an empty stretch of the Pine Barrens near Atlantic City after being decommissioned from their usual role of protecting the skies of the east coast.
It was only after both trade towers were hit that the two F-16s landed and were refitted with air-to-air missiles, then sent aloft.
Now that we have established how NORAD were confused, delayed and distracted by the numerous wargames, the next question to ask is who if anyone was aware of which planes were 'real world' and which planes were 'exercise'? The answer to this question will provide us with the name of the individual who ran the operatonal execution of the 9/11 attack.

Dick Cheney.

Cheney was initially taken by the secret service to an underground bunker in the White House called the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.
From there, according to CNN, Cheney directed the US government's response to the unfolding attack.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the 9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:
"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
As the plane in question hit the Pentagon, what else can we conclude but that the 'order' was not to shoot down the aircraft and to let it find its target.
Mineta stated that he did not know what the 'order' was because he wasn't there when it was made.
After the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was transfered to another bunker in what the Philadelphia Daily News describes as 'the underground Pentagon'.
Site R, a highly secure complex of buildings inside Raven Rock Mountain near Blue Ridge Summit, Pa., close to the Maryland-Pennsylvania state line and about seven miles north of Camp David, is a 53-year-old facility conceived at the start of the Cold War as an alternate command center in the event of nuclear war or an attack on Washington.
The bunker is built into a mountain hillside and is virtually camouflaged to the naked eye. The location betrays itself by the vast gaggle of satellites, microwave towers and antennae that festoon the perimeter. Inside the facility there are computer filled caverns and communication and tracking technology that would put a James Bond movie to shame.
The entire facility is guarded by heavily armed military police.
Within hours of 9/11 unfolding, five choppers had landed on the facility's helipad and top officials such as Paul Wolfowitz were ushered in to join Cheney in the command bunker.
Site R - also known as Raven Rock or the Alternate Joint Communications Center is from where vice-President Dick Cheney ran the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Cheney's command superceded the orders of the Pentagon, the FAA or the White House. He is the number one suspect in the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people.
In May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney was handed direct control of all wargame and drill operations. This meant he was solely in charge of the overlapping NORAD drills and wargames on the morning of 9/11, that prevented Standard Operating Procedure from being implemented, and any of the hijacked planes being intercepted.
The smoking guns of 9/11 are no longer disparate jigsaw pieces that serve to just raise more questions than they answer. We now have a coherent and plausible explanation of how the events unfolded, why there was no air defense response, and a prime suspect as to who executed these actions. The facts fit this version of events.
The 9/11 truth movement has just taken a giant leap towards dismantling the lies of September 11and finally offering justice for those who lost their lives on that terrible day.

Despite government rejections that such an attack had ever been envisaged, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) ran drills in the years previous simulating the exact 9/11 plot:

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...
USA Today, 18 March 2004

It has been reported that similar drills also occurred on the morning of 9/11 itself, apparently confusing air traffic controllers, and were offered as one of the many excuses for military failures. Indeed, NORAD did not respond until 85 minutes after the initial impact. Standard operating procedure is to scramble jets the moment a plane leaves its course, a procedure already put into practice 67 times by the American military that year.
British MP and former Blair cabinet minister Michael Meacher questioned the official version of events in an article in the London Guardian:

... The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not?
... could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11?
... 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence... is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11.

Here are the complete timelines from 3 different sources: the FAA, NORAD and the 9/11 Commission. Why aren’t these timelines in complete synchronization? Why were Air Force Bases that were farther away notified to send fighter jets rather than bases that were MUCH closer? Example: Why would NORAD order planes from Langley AFB, which is 130 miles from Washington, rather than from Andrews AFB, which is only 10 miles away and has the assignment to protect Washington? Why??? Why did the Pentagon LIE after it received criticism that they didn’t send planes from Andrews AFB and say that "Andrews had no fighters assigned to it" when it was widely reported that after the Pentagon was struck, F-16’s from Andrews AFB were flying over Washington? Here’s the amazing thing: Even sticking with the official account that Andrews "had no fighters assigned to it" (which justified sending fighter jets from Langley), another problem exists in the fact that the official version also says that the Langley fighters were airborne by 9:30am. The Pentagon was struck at 9:38am. An F-16’s top speed is 1,500 mph. Traveling at that speed an F-16 can go 187 miles in 7 ½ minutes. Langley is 130 miles from Washington. That’s 57 miles less the distance, knocking roughly 2 minutes off the travel time….meaning that the F-16’s could have reached Washington from Langley in roughly 5 ½ minutes. Even in the timeframe of the OFFICIAL version, the F-16’s would have reached the Pentagon at 9:35am, enough time to shoot down Flight 77. But, in reality the F-16’s reached the Pentagon 15 minutes late, at roughly 9:53am, making their travel time 23 minutes. An F-16 traveling for 23 minutes at 1,500 mph would go 575 miles (or 25 miles a minute). The distance from Langley to Washington is only 130 miles, which means these fighter jets could not have been traveling over 300 mph…..or about 20 percent capability. And we, the American people, are expected to believe this fairy tale. Unbelievable.

NORAD’s timeline (Sept 18, 2001)
Flight 11
0840 FAA Notification to NEADS
0846 Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s)
0852 Fighters Airborne
0846 (estimated) Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles
Flight 175
0843 FAA Notification to NEADS
0846 Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11)
0852 Fighters Airborne
0902 (estimated) Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71 miles
Flight 77
0924 FAA Notification to NEADS
0924 Fighter Scramble: Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s)
0930 Fighters Airborne
0937 (estimated) Airline Impact Time (Pentagon)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles
Flight 93
N/A FAA Notification to NEADS
Fighter Scramble: Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77)
Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC)
1003 (estimated) Airline Impact Time (Pennsylvania)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles (from DC F-16 CAP)

FAA/Military Timeline (Sept 11-14, 2001)
Flight 11
7:59 am Departed Boston
8:46 am North Tower of WTC struck
No planes scrambled
Flight 175
8:14 am Departed Boston
9:03 am South Tower of WTC struck
No planes scrambled
Flight 77
8:20 am Departed Dulles (Washington D.C.)
9:38 am Pentagon struck
No planes scrambled
Flight 93
8:42 am Departed Newark
10:03 am or 10:06 am Crashed in Pennsylvania
Planes scrambled shortly before Flight 93 crashed

9/11 Commission Timeline (July 2004)
Flight 11
8:25 am FAA (Boston Center) aware of hijacking
8:38 am FAA (Boston) notifies NEADS (NORAD) of hijacking
8:46 am NEADS scramble order to Otis AFB
8:46:40 am AA 11 strikes WTC
8:53 am Otis F-15’s airborne
9:16 am AA aware of its Flight 11 struck WTC
9:21 am Boston FAA (erroneously) tells NEADS: AA 11 headed to DC
9:24 am NEADS scrambles Langley F-16’s to stop phantom AA 11
Flight 175
8:42-8:47 am Various signs that a hijacking had occurred
8:52 am Flight attendant notified UA of hijacking
8:55 am FAA (New York Center) suspects hijacking
9:03 am UA 175 strikes WTC
9:15 am FAA notifies NEADS of strike (12 minutes afterwards)

Flight 77
9:05 am AA aware of hijacking
9:24 am NEADS scrambles Langley F-16’s (but to go after phantom AA 11, not AA 77)
9:34 am FAA notifies NEADS that AA 77 is missing (not hijacked)
9:38 am AA 77 strikes Pentagon
9:38 am F-16’s scrambled to stop phantom AA 11 are 150 miles away from DC (had gone wrong direction)

Flight 93
9:34 am FAA headquarters aware of hijacking
10:03 am UA 93 crashes
10:07 am FAA (Cleveland center) tells NEADS of hijacking
10:15 am FAA (Washington center) tells NEADS of crash