OMG -- Reading Ruppert's speech to Commonwealth Club

[Eloriel]

(It's must read, btw) --

I ran across this (pardon the caps, that's in the original):

THERE WERE AS MANY AS 22 POSSIBLE HIJACKINGS TAKING PLACE.
OTHER EXERCISES, SPECIFICALLY NORTHERN VIGILANCE HAD PULLED
SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE NORTHEAST U.S.
– JUST BEFORE 9/11 – INTO NORTHERN CANADA AND ALASKA. IN
ADDITION, A CLOSE READING OF KEY NEWS STORIES PUBLISHED IN THE
SPRING OF 2004 REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT SOME OF THESE
DRILLS WERE “LIVE-FLY” EXERCISES WHERE ACTUAL AIRCRAFT, LIKELY
FLOWN BY REMOTE CONTROL – WERE SIMULATING THE BEHAVIOR OF
HIJACKED AIRLINERS IN REAL LIFE. ALL OF THIS AS THE REAL ATTACKS
BEGAN. THE FACT THAT THESE EXERCISES HAD NEVER BEEN
SYSTEMATICALLY AND THOROUGHLY EXPLORED IN THE MAINSTREAM
PRESS, OR PUBLICLY BY CONGRESS, OR AT LEAST PUBLICLY IN ANY
DETAIL BY THE SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION MADE ME
THINK THAT THEY MIGHT BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF 9/11.

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY TURNED OUT TO BE.

Page 31:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf
------

Now, does anyone remember (and have links for) the fact that a big handful of execs from the defense contractor who was working on remote control aircraft technology died on one (or two?) of those planes that were "hijacked"? (I always thought that was SUCH a very odd coincidence...)

Looks like I have to get Ruppert's book when it comes out. "Crossing the Rubicon," due out soon.

[Pallas180]

1. Eloriel, I think Minstrel Boy has that info and

is posting a thread of similar interest under " Magic Bullshit" above.

[Wind Dancer]

2. I read this last night!

Would love to know who was in attendance at The Commonwealth Club. Everything indicates that this is about Peak Oil and the future of this planet. The entire article is chilling, aside from the horrific events of 9/11, his view of the future of the world is not promising. I remember the passenger list with so many former military, specializing in high tech secret operations. This gets scarier everyday.

What are your thoughts on the overall picture? I have heard Ruppert has a solid reputation which makes it even more alarming.

[Eloriel]

5. Well, Ruppert often seems (or sounds) way "out there" --

but while I haven't been a BIG follower of him, it's my understanding (as he points out in this speech, btw), that his info is well-documented and rock solid. I don't think I've ever seen any of his info refuted or debunked.

It's also my understanding that he started out on his mission in life as a cop in CA (LA?) and saw firsthand that the CIA was involved in drugs. That's where his COP v CIA (copvcia) web address came from.

In this speech, he repeats again and again that what he's saying is definitive, well-documented, irrefutable.

[Wind Dancer]

7. Yes, he makes a compelling case in this address.

I've read some info on his website but this article is chilling. I would love to know who was at this event, his findings may cause a huge stir in mainstream America.

[nomatrix]

25. Falls Church, Ptech, Mitre Corp, Sept 11

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/smilinks/FallsChurch.html

I knew I saved this link. Read it all because it does make complete sense. This was from 2 years ago. When you get to Mitre click the link. It takes you to who died that work on those systems.

Don't complain about this being in the basement, you'll attract attention. Just watch this unfold to make absolute sense.

I watched only some of the hearings. Read some of the reports. Followed this from the CT threads. When I watched Sen. Mark Dayton questioning the different NORAD time changes, then say how many different exercises Vigilant Guardian, Warrior, etc. on the same day went back to this link, and saw how it connected.

Cop vs CIA is right on. Now what happened to (sp) Delmark? The one that was in jail in Canada, who told authorities this event was going to happen?

[parasim]

56. Vreeland?

Good question.

[RebelYell]

65. According to Oakland County Sheriff's most wanted list.....

Vreeland is still a wanted man.

http://www.co.oakland.mi.us/sheriff/most_wanted/fugitives/vreeland.html

[RebelYell]

66. See my post #65 n/t

[nomatrix]

75. Thanks, the name is the same

First time I've seen a picture of him.

[Imalittleteapot]

3. Read Jim Marr's book

"Inside Job: Unmasking the Conspiracies of 9/11". He talks about the fight exercises (war games) that took place on 9/11, how some in the government must have know of the planned attacks and the cover up. I'm reading it now. It's a short easy to read expose.

[Eloriel]

4. Another excerpt

IN MY BOOK I WILL MAKE SEVERAL KEY POINTS:
1. I WILL NAME RICHARD CHENEY AS THE PRIME SUSPECT IN THE MASS
MURDERS OF 9/11 AND WILL ESTABLISH THAT, NOT ONLY WAS HE A
PLANNER IN THE ATTACKS, BUT ALSO THAT ON THE DAY OF THE
ATTACKS HE WAS RUNNING A COMPLETELY SEPARATE COMMAND,
CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM WHICH WAS SUPERCEDING
ANY ORDERS BEING ISSUED BY THE NMCC, OR THE WHITE HOUSE
SITUATION ROOM. TO ACCOMPLISH THAT END HE RELIED ON A
REDUNDANT AND SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM MAINTAINED
BY THE US SECRET SERVICE IN OR NEAR THE PRESIDENTIAL
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER – THE BUNKER TO WHICH HE AND
33 NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE WERE REPORTEDLY
“RUSHED” AFTER FLIGHT 175 STRUCK THE WTC’S SOUTH TOWER. I WILL
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SECRET SERVICE POSSESSED RADAR
SCREENS WHICH GAVE THEM, AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHOSE SIDE
THE NEVER LEFT, WITH REAL-TIME INFORMATION AS GOOD AS OR
BETTER THAN THAT AVAILABLE TO THE PENTAGON;

I have always wondered about the look on Bush's face after he got the news from Card. I'll say it again: it looked to me like he was pissed, that the player had been played (betrayed) and he'd just had the first inkling. I STILL think he knew something, but it was much bigger than he was expecting. I also think that one reason he didn't return to Washington for a while that day was that HE didn't know if HE was safe -- thinking there might be a coup going on. Of course, they probably didn't want him in Washington anyway, but still.

snip

3. I WILL ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY THAT IN MAY OF 2001, BY
PRESIDENTIAL ORDER, RICHARD CHENEY WAS PUT IN DIRECT
COMMAND AND CONTROL OF ALL WARGAME AND FIELD EXERCISE
TRAINING AND SCHEDULING THROUGH SEVERAL AGENCIES,
ESPECIALLY FEMA. THIS ALSO EXTENDED TO ALL OF THE CONFLICTING
AND OVERLAPPING NORAD DRILLS ON THAT DAY.


Back to read more...

[alfredo]

6. Only essential personnel

were needed in Washington. What use would bush be anyway? He could have called out for pizza, but Powell could have done that, and would not have forgotten the extra cheese on the pepperoni pizzas.

[hang a left]

8. There was discussion about this a while back.

"I also think that one reason he didn't return to Washington for a while that day was that HE didn't know if HE was safe -- thinking there might be a coup going on. Of course, they probably didn't want him in Washington anyway, but still."


There was speculation that * was wisked away in order for him to get the story straight. He had already made a damning comment to a reporter about sitting outside and watching the "first" plane hit the towers and his thoughts on the pilots flying ability. That statement of course has come back to haunt him. I think it is plausible that there were those that were nervous about what other stupid things might exit his mouth and kept him tucked away and out of site. (Wouldn't it be nice to have Airforce 1 phone records).

My perspective of the look on *'s face after Card whispered in his ear was one of a controlled shitting his pants look. He looked scared to death to me.

[Pallas180]

9. I agree, not only scared, but I agree with the perception that he

was thinking "it wasn't supposed to be that big" and hey is there another coup going on and what should I do and how come Cheney isn't
calling me......"

I think I also have proof of why Cheney wasn't calling him.

Reb had a thread in the 9-11 section, recounting 4 middle eastern men
arrived at the hotel dimson was staying at in Sarasota on the day of
the attack. They asked for a Secret Service agent assigned to dimson.
they asked for him by name. This was reported in the local paper...but you didn't hear about it in the Washington Post. The men said they were reporters and had an appointment for an interview with
dimson.

A receptionist said they didnt have their names on an appointment list and didnt call the Secret Service agent.

Reporters, the day before 9-11 also went to interview The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and killed their leader, Massood (sic).

Isn't that a coincidence..

If the middle eastern men had succeeded in their interview, perhaps from 9-11 on, Darth Vader would have been President.

Some days things just don't go right for f.u.

[Pallas180]

10. be alert

[burythehatchet]

13. Question: Do you think GHWB knows?

[hang a left]

14. I do. eom

[Minstrel Boy]

15. I believe Bush was meant to be killed that morning, just as

Masood had been the day before. Same modus operandi: exploding camera.

From Daniel Hospicker:

Mooneyhan told reporter Shay Sullivan of the Longboat Observer that at about 6 a.m. on Sept. 11 a van carrying Middle Eastern men tried to gain entry to the Colony Beach Resort, where Bush was staying.

The Middle Eastern men identified themselves as a television news crew with an appointment with the President. They claimed they had a "poolside" interview scheduled with the President, and asked for a Secret Service agent by name, Mooneyhan said.

The van was turned back by suspicious Secret Service agents at the guard station in front of the Colony Beach Resort, who told the men to contact the President’s public relations office in Washington D.C.

But the Secret Service has not acknowledged the obvious... which is that the ruse used at the Colony Resort on Longboat Key to attempt to gain access to Pres. Bush is exactly the same as that used just two days earlier to successfully assassinate Afghan Northern Alliance leader Shah Masood.
http://www.madcowprod.com/mc252004.html

The conspirators didn't get everything their way that day. Another fuck up was that Flight 93's departure was delayed more than 40 minutes. I believe its intended target was the Capitol building.

Imagine September 11 with Bush martyred, Cheney president and the legislative branch virtually eradicated.

[RebelYell]

29. Here's my post from my thread "Down The Memory Hole"

that was relegated to the basement. If (DU owner) feels that any theory other than the official government story is "embarrassing", then he's part of the problem. I personally don't give a damn about embarrassing anyone anymore or what Freepers think. Why would anyone care what those people think???

Isn't it funny - that's exactly where the thread went - down the memory hole. It was moved from GD and I knew it would be. Then, while in the 911 forum, the other posters completely missed the point of the entire article!

Here's the report of the assassination attempt in the Long Boat Observer newspaper. Read it and hide in shame, (DU owner).

Possible Longboat terrorist incident
Is it a clue or is it a coincidence?
By Shay Sullivan, City Editor
Wednesday, September 26, 2001

By now, most everyone knows President George W. Bush began that fateful day, Sept. 11, on Longboat Key, but the FBI is now investigating whether terrorists also began that fateful day here on the island.

At about 6 a.m. Sept. 11, Longboat Key Fire Marshall Carroll Mooneyhan was at the front desk of the Colony Beach & Tennis Resort as Bush prepared for his morning jog. From that vantage point, Mooneyhan overheard a strange exchange between a Colony receptionist and security guard.

A van occupied by men of Middle Eastern descent had pulled up to the Colony stating they had a “poolside” interview with the president, Mooneyhan said. The self-proclaimed reporters then asked for a Secret Service agent by name. Guards from security relayed the request to the receptionist, who had not heard of either the agent or plans for an interview, Mooneyhan said.

~~~~~~~~

http://www.longboatobserver.com/showarticle.asp?ai=1874

Follow up article from same newspaper:

~~~~~~~~

Authorities are also looking into a report published last week in The Longboat Observer that men claiming to be reporters came to the Colony Beach & Tennis Resort Sept. 11 seeking an interview with President George W. Bush, who had spent the night at the resort.

According to Longboat Key firefighter Carroll Mooneyhan, who was in the resort’s lobby at the time, the hotel receptionist told a secret service agent there were men seeking an interview with Bush. A Secret Service agent turned the men away after telling them to contact the president’s public relations office, Mooneyhan said.

Coincidentally, the request for the interview with Bush is the same modus operandi used in the death of an anti-Taliban general in Afghanistan. On Sept. 9, Afghan opposition leader Ahmed Shah Masood granted an interview to two men who claimed to be reporters in the town of Khwaja Baha-Uddin, according to BBC News. Once close to Masood, one of the men received permission to use his video camera. The man then picked up the video camera and it exploded, dealing a fatal blow to both Masood and the suicide bombers, reported BBC news.

FBI spokeswoman Sara Oates declined to discuss the matter or the other two tips passed on to the FBI by Longboat Key Police.

~~~~~~~~

http://www.longboatobserver.com/showarticle.asp?ai=1923

Not one, but two newspaper articles. How embarrassing!

[RedSock]

53. I agree with you Minstrel

9/11 could have been way way way worse that it already was -- if for instance the 4 planes (or more?) had left all on time.

***

BTW, Bush did NOT make any statement about seeing a plane on 9/11. He said that he had seen the first plane on TV in two different town hall meetings, one in December 2001 and one in January 2002.

What's weird about that is that he couldn't have gotten the two crashes mixed up because we know he didn't see the second one either. He was already in the class room.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. I've got a theory about Bush's claim of seeing the plane

Mind you, it's just a theory.

You know and I know that Bush couldn't have seen the first plane hit the WTC. No recording of that event was available to the mainstream media on 9/11.

Bush might have seen a TV showing the first tower on fire. But I don't know his exact path before entering the classroom. Others here probably have blueprints of the schools with Bush's footprints showing where he was the whole time.

Bush couldn't have seen the second tower hit either, as you say: he was in the classroom.

There are pictures of Bush sitting at a table with a legal pad, and someone (Rove?) pointing at the TV showing the plane hit the tower. No doubt this was before the nationwide statement and after leaving the classroom.

Here's what I think happened that day:

Bush was informed of the first hit and/or saw the coverage of the hit. He probably didn't go straight to the classroom, so I bet he was in that same room before the classroom and saw the coverage and there thought "What a turrible pilot." Moved on.

Then he's informed of the second plane in the classroom. After finally, FINALLY leaving the classroom, he's back in the prep room getting the statement ready when his attention is drawn to the TV where shots of Flight 175 striking the second tower are being replayed. Now he's seen a plane strike the WTC.

Much later, when he's asked what he thought when he saw the first plane hit the tower, Bush's brain executes a faulty recall. He's thinking on his feet in front of a crowd, which is always bad for this pResident, and having basted his brain in a long marinade of cocaine and alcohol from his teens into his late thirties, he gets it all mixed up. He knocks out a passable story, incorporating the "turrible pilot" and seeing the plane.

Well, no one back at the Western White House said much to him about it, because it was a softball question from a kid, and it was a nice story, and how much play is that story going to get anyway? But a month later, the question comes up again, and Bush spouts off the story again, because it's a good story. Utterly untrue, of course, but a good story.

Now someone (Rove?) says something to him about it, because he's never repeated that story since. Think about it: Bush couldn't accurately remember what he did on 9/11 three months after it happened. You'd think that would be a day to remember, don't you?

I've no doubt that Bush's faulty memory is going to come in quite handy for him in the future...

[RH]

55. On many occassions I have heard people say

that they saw an accident, when in pedantic terms all they really saw was the aftermath. I have done so myself. Abreviated expression saves time.

[stickdog]

69. "And I thought to myself, 'What a lousy pilot?'"

Sure, keep telling yourself there's an innocent explanation.

The dude REPEATED this little piece of impossible (unless he was watching qaedavision) bullcrap TWICE!

[stickdog]

68. Except that picture of them pointing to the TV comes from a photo essay

"recreation" of Bush on 9/11 that they mocked up long after the event itself.

And this should be rich:

What is your "explanation" for Bush, Rumsfeld and General Myers all sitting on their hands between 9:05 and 9:30 EDT that day?

[RH]

76. "recreation" ?

and we are supposed to simply take your word for that?

What please, if any, is the source of you "recreation" quote?

[stickdog]

80. Just check the clock on the wall ...

[DulceDecorum]

19. About that first plane:

Editor’s note: As the horrific events of last September 11 unfolded, media reports came in that among the dead on American Airlines Flight 11, the first airplane that hit the north tower of the World Trade Center, was David Angell and his wife, Lynn. Angell was an Emmy Award-winning writer and producer for the television sitcoms Cheers, Wings, and Frasier. On this first anniversary month of the September 11 terrorist attack, David Angell’s brother, Most Reverend Kenneth A. Angell, Bishop of the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, shares his thoughts about the events of that black day, about the life of his brother, and about what it all means in the context of faith in God.

<snip>

AS I WATCHED THE FIRST PLANE CRASH INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON TELEVISION, I didn’t think they were on that plane. I had been with them the day before for a family wedding on Cape Cod, where I had stayed the weekend with them in their home. We had a great time. They brought me to the airport on September tenth, and I flew back to Burlington. I knew that they were leaving the following day to go back to California, but they usually took a later plane. And of course at first we had no idea where the plane originated.

When I found out that it was a plane out of Boston, it gave me some concern, but I still believed that they were leaving later. I got the call about noon from my sister telling me that David and Lynn had been on the plane.
http://www.vermontcatholic.org/September11th/ThisRock.html

There you have it folks,
David Angell’s brother,
Most Reverend Kenneth A. Angell,
Bishop of the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont
has corroborated pRedsident Bush's statement
concerning seeing the first plane hit on television.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. I read most of it last night.

I couldn't believe what I was reading. His book is on my MUST read list. What he had to say about the 911 Commission was so, so, not surprising. :grr: Our government is CORRUPT. Period.

[hang a left]

12. Beyond corrupt.

Corruption gone wild.

[screembloodymurder]

16. What happened to the 911 forum?

???

[hang a left]

57. I just noticed the forum is missing from the Forums front page.

Why?

[Bolo Boffin]

58. It's been that way for some time.

This forum and the Israeli-Palestinian forum are both not on the front page. They are in the pull-down menu, though. Why is a question to ask the administrators.

[bpilgrim]

17. He also compared wtc7 to the zapruder film head shot

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

that and SOP clearly demonstrates there IS a gov conspiracy against the weTHEpeople

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Pallas180]

18. Can I ask

why everything to do with 911 on DU is moved to a door behind a
door behind a door?

[truth2power]

20. Because there are many here who STILL

are in denial about how far these thugs will go to carry out their agenda.

Also, someone always comes along to say, "These are just conspiracy theories. And, what will THEY (freeps, repugs) think of us?"

I'm not at all surprised that Cheney would have planned and orchestrated 911. Why is that so hard to believe? He's a soulless POS.

[Eloriel]

22. They're ashamed of us

Don't want to let us "conspiracy kooks" out in public. So many Dems are such spineless, fearful creatures.

[JackieO]

23. So Ruppert's book is too hot for DU's General Discussion forum?

That's just pathetic.

:thumbsdown:

[gandalf]

26. Good question! But even Skinner

is very careful when it comes to 9/11-threads.

He does not like what he sees as conspiracy threads in GD. I can provide a post from him in the AtA forum when the search function works again.

[bpilgrim]

37. hot topic

:evilgrin:

i'm just glad it's still here ;->

:hi:

peace

[stickdog]

70. My frank and fittingly paranoid guess is that profound 9/11 analysis

on DU is not supposed to be entertained so much as CONTAINED.

If this discussion board is Democratic Underground, welcome to the subsubsub-basement.

[graphixtech]

21. watch two short Ruppert videos here (from May in Toronto)

http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/

He touches upon the issue, though the most direct reference was in part one.

[JohnyCanuck]

51. Audio interview with Ruppert, just prior to latest speech.

I found it at www.globalpublicmedia.com. It's in MP3 format and approx. 30min. Towards the end of the interview he goes into why he is not addressing the building collapses etc. for now. He gives an example of a cop investigating a crime who asks a suspect, "Where were you at 2:OOam on Thursday." The suspect replies, "I was at Joe's bar." It's a relatively straightforward issue to go to Joe's bar and find witnesses to confirm or deny Joe's alibi. However if the cop accuses a suspect of being under the influence of illegal drugs when a crime is committed and in court gets into providing what evidence led to that conclusion, e.g. eye pupil size etc. The defense can usually find other witnesses with scientific credentials who can negate the cop's position and describe reasons other than illegal drug use as to why those symptoms might be manifested.

For a non-scientist or a scientist without experience in the medical field, this can sew confusion in the minds of jurors and the courtroom audience and greatly adds to the difficulty of the cop and prosecutor in making their case.

Mike said he was following this "keep it simple, stupid" principle (my words) in providing the evidence he thought incriminated elements of the US government in participating in the 911 attacks. Rather than get into technical details as to why and how buildings collapse which (as we have seen in this very 911 forum) leads to and endless rounds of theories and counter-theories, he is sticking to the more easily proved evidence of complicity.


Ruppert Interview

[stickdog]

71. I agree with his approach 100% and wish that many other 9/11 skeptics

would take a page from his book and go with the BEST, most comprehensible and least debatable evidence of complicity before resorting to pseudo-scientific "he said, she said" fights with our resident debunko squad.

[Dover]

24. Why does Russia seem to mirror our own events? Is there some bigger

plan here? This is all too coincidental......

First there were the questionable apartment bombings that aided Putin's climb to power. Now we have the unexplained airlines crash, hostage taking, another bomb in Moscow......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x798467

[gandalf]

27. You know, these crazy terrorists...

I think it is a global strategy to use terrorism. Let's assume as a working hypothesis that 9/11 was not only the work of some crazy Arabs but that they got some sophisticated help. In this case it would be smart to assure that friendly nations (Europe, Russia) play along.

I was shocked to hear our German chancellor Schröder say to Putin that as far as he can see the elections in Tchetchenia were fair -- shortly after the last "terrorist attacks" in Russia.

Apparently Putin and Bush have an agreement to "fight their war on terror", respectively, as they like.

[GliderGuider]

28. A quote to keep in mind around here

"IN ORDER TO MAKE THE STRONGEST LEGAL CASE POSSIBLE I HAVE AVOIDED DISCUSSIONS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE – OPEN TO ACRIMONIOUS DEBATE AND SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE – AND CHOSEN TO DO WHAT ANY GOOD POLICE OFFICER MUST DO; KEEP MY EYE ON THE SUSPECTS."

It's a godsend to the debunkers when skeptics start to focus on individual bits of physical evidence, because each single piece can then be challenged on its own. As a result the skeptic ends up having to defend their interpretation of an infinity of tiny discrepancies, and the whole theory can be attacked on the basis that "if one piece of your supporting evidence can be negated, the entire hypothesis is thereby void". By keeping our eye on the patterns that emerge when the suspects and their motives are examined, it becomes much easier to see the foul play at work.

It's kind of like looking at a painting. Examining individual brush strokes is a useful exercise, epspecially for someone trying to detect a forgery, but it's generally more useful to take a few steps back and look at the whole painting. Which in this case looks a lot like "Guernica" to me...

[MercutioATC]

30. A "good police officer" ignores physical evidence?

Wow! That's a new one to me...

Hell, I could make a great case for alien abductions if I "avoided discussions of physical evidence".

[GliderGuider]

31. Tsk, tsk, you can do better than that

He didn't say a good police officer ignores evidence - re-read the quote, please. That's what's known as a straw man.

[MercutioATC]

32. If you'd read MY post, you'd understand that I had a deeper meaning.

Beginning with his attempt at credibility by using a police officer reference, I disagree with the entirety of the statement you posted.

Ignoring physical evidence leaves you with only impressions to base a theory on. Impressions are subjective. A theory based solely on subjective data is an interesting thought experiment, but it's valueless in practical terms.

[GliderGuider]

33. Yes, you need evidence to prove a crime has been committed

You disagree with many posters here, including me, on whether the evidence that is available indicates that a crime was committed. I think the combination of physical evidence, unanswered questions, patterns of prior and subsequent behaviour and qui bono points unequivocally to a crime having been committed on Sept. 11.

I've seen you and RH, among others on this board, denigrate any conclusion that differs from the official story. Do you think there is any aspect of the events that day that isn't explained by the official story? Or have the sanctioned investigations conclusively proved that it happened as we've been told by official sources?

[MercutioATC]

34. Yes, I've pointed out the holes in some theories.

So have others. I can only speak for myself, however.

I don't see why an author's carelessness is my problem, though. I don't "denigrate any conclusion that differs from the official story", I simply show where the theorist is either working with bad data or an incomplete knowledge of the subject matter. If the originators of these missives would use a little more care, I wouldn't post nearly as much in the 9/11 Forum.

[GliderGuider]

35. could you point me to some of those holes?

Maybe a search term that would get me to a thread in which you've described them? In general, what aspects of the theories (actually it's "hypotheses" at this point) do you feel have holes in them?

[MercutioATC]

38. Sure. I've posted a few below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=18425#18429

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=17231

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=652#17102

You could just search "MercutioATC" as "author" in the 9/11 Forum. I'm sure Bolo and LARED et al wouldn't mind you checking their posts out, either.

In general, most of the "holes" seem to be do to a lack of comprehension of specific subject matter (anybody who knows about planes knows the starboard landing gear goes there the "pod" is...somebody who deals with aviation would never say a 757 can fly at 1/3 to 1/2 of the speed of sound with its engines turned off).

The "remote control" theory is the only one that I haven't seen large flaws in so far. I don't subscribe to it, personally, but I haven't seen anything that would rule it out.

[GliderGuider]

41. Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough

I'm wondering what holes you see in the official story. Are there any parts of it that still make you go "Hmmm..."?

I've actually read a bunch of your posts, and I know you take issue with most of what people bring up as evidence of something being wrong with the government's story. What bits of that story aren't yet explained to your satisfaction, and have you drawn any conclusions from the evidence and official analysis presented so far?

[MercutioATC]

45. Sorry, I misunderstood. I can come up with a few.

1) The 3-minute discrepency between the "official" crash time of UAL93 and the seismological record of something happening. We lose planes on radar at about 1300' there. I'd like to see an explanation of the 3-minute gap.

2) I'd like a release of the ATC radar data tapes to an independant panel for examination. Most of the theories hinge on issues that could be either proven or disproven by the data on those tapes. I don't see anything that leads me to believe anybody's lying about what they contain, but I'd like to see for myself.

3) I'd also like a release of all Pentagon evidence. Lots of little pieces were collected...I want to know what they were. An eyewitness reported that one of the engines landed by a loading dock. I want pictures!

Those are off the top of my head. Most of the problem I have with the different aspects of the "official" story have to do with the lack of released information. For example, the wheel at the Pentagon was obviously examined. It should have been able to be confirmed or eliminated as an American 757 wheel. I want that information.

Does that answer your question a little better?

[GliderGuider]

49. Thank you

Yes, that answers it a lot better. I agree, most of the questions out there might just go away if they just released all the damn information. Nothing sizzles a CT like exposure to the evidence. Conversely, nothing nourishes it like obvious official secrecy that makes people wonder what they're hiding.

There's a lot of information and evidence they're sitting on with no apparent good reason in this case.

[RH]

52. apparent reason?

Can anybody here show me a copy of an actual refusual to reveal evidence? For as far as I can see the main reason for a lack of evidence is simply that nobody actually bothered to ask for it.

Supply and demand, same as anything else. Too many back seat drivers.

When more people like Ruppert do take the trouble to take themselves seriously maybe then they'll get somewhere.

[hang a left]

59. Please.

Many people including the families of the victims of 9-11 have demanded an independent investigation. Nobody wants to play.

http://iitc.911review.org/index.shtml

We propose the creation of an Independent International Truth Commission on the events of September 11, 2001 to hear evidence from witnesses and experts, deliberate on this material, and issue findings to the broadest possible spectrum of world public opinion. Our approximate model would be the Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal held in Sweden and Denmark in 1967 (see BertrandRussellTribunal).

At every turn in its drive for war with Iraq, the Bush Administration claimed that the 9-11 events marked a qualitative turning point in world history, abrogating accepted notions of international law and authorizing a new regime of pre-emptive attacks, including nuclear attacks, on states branded as terrorist. These same events have been seized upon as a pretext for US campaigns of racial defamation against Arabs and Moslems, and for sweeping police state measures, and for war. However, the Bush administration has never offered a detailed and documented account of its claims about the events of 9-11 which have allegedly revolutionized human affairs. Nor has it explained obvious and serious discrepancies in its own statements and actions. No systematic proof has ever been published or offered as to who the terrorists were, how they operated, where they came from, and why they were not stopped. Tony Blair’s release of fake dossiers and Colin Powell’s discredited claims before the UN Security Council about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have once more heightened public skepticism about US-UK intelligence methods.

Colin Powell promised a white book on 9-11, but none has been forthcoming. The Bush administration blocked the formation of a board of inquiry to establish the facts in this case until late 2002, and the senator who called most insistently for such a board in the months after 9-11 (Torricelli of New Jersey) was driven from public life by scandals. By contrast, a board of inquiry on the recent space shuttle disaster was up and running within days. The Bush administration fended off calls from the victims’ families for a timely independent investigation by citing the alleged danger of interfering with urgent anti-terror efforts. The 2002 Congressional investigations into 9-11 have yielded a very meager result. The current National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (originally Kissinger-Mitchell, now Kean-Hamilton) Commission, because of the circumscribed nature of its mandate, its limited budget, and the appearance of conflicts of interest among its staff, seems to be a very dubious vehicle, although we would hope to cooperate with it in any way possible. The Kean-Hamilton panel’s limited funding from Congress makes a mockery of the tragedy of 9-11, considering that it is only a small fraction of the huge sums spent to investigate Bill Clinton. The Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination was of course deeply flawed, but this time it appears that there will not even be a Warren Commission-style compendium of US government allegations.

We note that both the US Congress and the Kean-Hamilton Commission have protested the Bush administration’s lack of cooperation with their inquiries into 9-11. We call upon the United States Government to declassify and make generally available in full and unredacted form all files, documents, and other data germane to the events of 9-11. We further invite the United States Government to send its representatives to appear as witnesses before the Commission, and freely to allow federal officials to answer the questions of Commission members.

snip>

[GliderGuider]

60. Agreed. And why should we have to ask?

Given that this was the most horrific single assault against civilians in US history, I would have thought the government would be eager to release all the information it can - to demonstrate how it happened, who was behind it, and determine what can be done to prevent a recurrence.

Of course, that might demonstrate how it happened and who was behind it...

As the authorities are fond of saying when the shoe is on the other foot, "If you have nothing to hide, if you are in fact innocent, you have no reason to fear our questions."

Uh huh.

[RH]

62. and how would that happen?

Would a government simply declare an end to all secret service activity?

If not then how do you define the remit of secrecy?

[MercutioATC]

64. Well, I can think of two reasons off the top of my head...

They're called "ongoing investigation" and "national security".

I'd like to see more information released, too but let's not pretend that there's NO reason for them not doing so.

[RH]

61. No systematic proof has ever been published or offered ?

There was trial in a Court of law in Hamburg. It began in 2002 and to this day the retrial proceeds.

Did you not read the transcript?

There was also the New York trial in 2001, before 9/11.

[hang a left]

63. What in the hell are you talking about?

I responded to your assertion that the reason evidence has not been looked at is because noone has requested it. That is bullshit.

snip>

The commission went on to dutifully handicap itself further, by agreeing to numerous conditions and "compromises" with the White House. Six out of 10 of the commissioners had to agree on any request for a subpoena. Requests for documents from the executive branch had to be channeled through the Bush Justice Department. The White House requested, and received, the right to review commission material so that it could assert executive privilege. Kean cut a deal preventing Bush from testifying. He cut yet another deal allowing the White House to edit intelligence briefs before the commissioners could see them, while also limiting access to the pre-edited briefs to a minority of commissioners. Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the commission over this issue, put it simply: "That decision compromised the mission of the 9/11 Commission, period."

In its own Staff Statement No. 16, the commission concedes that its own work has been slipshod, at best :

"Much of the account reflects assertions reportedly made by various 9/11 conspirators and captured Al-Qaeda members while under interrogation. We have sought to corroborate this material as much as possible. Some of this material has been inconsistent. We have had to make judgment calls based on the weight and credibility of the evidence. Our information on statements attributed to such individuals comes from written reporting; we have had no direct access to any of them."

The commission's processes—corrupted as they clearly are—have been largely insulated from public involvement and participation. Outraged 9/11 victims' families and researchers have demanded greater access and accountability, to no avail.

Wolves Guarding the Hen House

The entire commission is rife with conflicts of interest. Bush originally appointed the malignant Henry Kissinger to head the commission. After this crude ploy failed, Bush chose an equally unsavory, but lesser-known fixer, Thomas Kean, to be its chairman. This was followed by the appointment of long-time Bush administration national security insider (and Condoleeza Rice colleague) Philip Zelikow as the commission's executive director, upon the recommendation of legendary Republican fixer, Slade Gorton.

Kissinger and Kean are directly connected to the current and previous Bush-Reagan regimes. Both are directly connected to long-time multinational oil interests in Central Asia that benefited from the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan and the planned trans-Afghan oil pipeline—the first objective of the 9/11 War.

Zelikow was a senior staffer on the National Security Council under the first President Bush. He also worked for the Bush transition team, and the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Bureau.

Other commissioners are also legendary political fixers, who have been well-placed at all major US scandals in recent decades:

snip>

much more, read on....



http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/062904Chin/062904chin.html

[RH]

67. I was talking about the generality,

the ebb and flow of attention and interest,
i.e. "The commission's processes—corrupted as they clearly are—have been largely insulated from public involvement and participation."

and thus for the sake of participants usually present, somehow doubting that the Commission would heed so much of what would turn up here.

The story you cite talks of cutting yet another deal, not quite the same thing as a refusal of an entitlement. I am surprised, frankly, that you'd consider the commission to be on your side to begin with. That's not the sort of attitude to their affair usually to be encountered in this vicinity.

[stickdog]

73. Sure. Nobody's asked. Nobody's filed FOIA requests. Nobody's

filed lawsuits. Nobody's organized. Noboby's signed petitions. Nobody's applied pressure.

Yah, that's the ticket!!!

[RH]

77. That's my point, the sheer ignorance of it all.

While they ran around and around in circles, for a couple of years, bickering with each other endlessly, nothing of any real use or interest turned up, certainly nothing to make a case of in terms of ordinary jurisprudence.

They could at least have chased the black box information for Flight 77. Instead they spoiled the chance by falling for the 'No black box was found' disinformation ruse.

Long ago I published a collection of Pentagon witnesses reports, the first thus to be avaialble. As I did so the expectation was that either it would put an end once or for all to the speculation about Flight 77, or else anybody seriously interested would take the trouble to contact the witnesses to seek better explanations of where they were, what they saw, who they told, etc.

Except to a slight extent neither happend. It is as if, once a mind is full enough of its own imagining, there is then no room, nor any need for better evidence.

[stickdog]

81. Who is "they"? (nt)

[stickdog]

72. What time was 93's last radar return? What was its position?

Aren't you forgeting that 93's FDR was recovered intact? Why can't we see that flight data?

What are your explanations for all of the "Vigilant" exercises going on that day? What do your ATC friends who were working that day think about the complete lack of interceptions over a two hour period that Senator Dayton describes? What do you think explains the complete and utter inaction of Bush, Rumsfeld and General Myers between 9:05 and 9:45 EDT that day?

Why did NORAD publish bullshit timelines according to the 9/11 Commission? Was the FAA REALLY so incompetent that nobody there even thought it was important to intercept Flight 93 more than 45 minutes after the SECOND plane hit the WTC? If so, who was at fault and why weren't they fired?

Are you really allowed to talk about 9/11 on the record? Is that because you weren't on duty that day or can all ATCs now talk freely about their experiences?

[RH]

79. Why can't we see that flight data?

You need to have clear idea of how it helps.
Who knows how to interpret the bare data?
Supply and demand.
Nobody goes to a great deal of trouble just for the sake it, and we've seen before what becomes of official information in terms of credibility and analysis.

[stickdog]

82. What the FUCK are you talking about? When planes crash, the NTSB

investigates. If there is a Flight Data Recorder, the information from it is routinely released in the final report.

But -- for some reason -- none of the 9/11 planes are subkect to NTSB investigations.

And in this case of Flight 93, the information has been actively suppressed, despite multiple pleas from the SURVIVING FAMILIES! So what the FUCK on you on about with your "supply and demand" crap?

I demand to see the FDR data. I've filed a FOIA request for it that was denied supposedly because its release could "jeopardize ongoing criminal prosecutions"? How? Of whom?

What more do you want me to do to get this information released? I've demanded, Will Bunch has demanded, and the surviving families have demanded. Where's the fucking supply?

[RH]

36. The official story does not pretend to explain everything.

Atta's excursion to Portland has not been explained at all.

Nobody has yet explained the unlikely route of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. I have suggested that the Pentagon was not the intended target.

[stickdog]

74. That's great. Because it explains NONE of the most important questions.

None.

It simply ignores them or waves them away with a "because we said so."

[RH]

78. Most important questions such as?

I see next to no sign of serious questions, a serious question being a question put to somebody whose appointed responsibilty it is to provide a serious answer.

Apart from this sort of casually anynomous Internet tittle tattle who did you ask? Did you ever attempt to procure an official reply to demonstrate, from anybody at all?

[stickdog]

83. What the FUCK are you on about? I've filed over a DOZEN FOIA requests.

All but two have been rejected (pending? lost? ignored?) and NONE have fulfilled.

What the fuck else do you want me to do? Break in like G. Gordon Liddy?

[k-robjoe]

39. Context Mercutio.

I think what Ruppert is saying here, is that he has not investigated into the theories that the towers were demolished and that no plane hit the Pentagon. I have read some articles by Ruppert, and when he talks about the "physical evidence of 911" he is referring to those theories (that he doesn´t want to concentrate on).

He is not saying that "A good police officer ignores physical evidence".

Context Mercutio.

( Even if you have not read anything by Ruppert before, your interprtation is simply saddening. )

[MercutioATC]

40. Did you read any of my followup posts?

I simply don't agree with the methodology. You're free to have a different opinion. I understand the context, I just disagree.

[k-robjoe]

43. You understood the context?

In your followup post you wrote :

> "Ignoring physical evidence leaves you with only impressions to base a theory on. Impressions are subjective. A theory based solely on subjective data is an interesting thought experiment, but it's valueless in practical terms."

Mercutio, you didn´t understand the context. We are not talking about ignoring physical evidence.

Within the theories that Ruppert doesn´t want to deal with ( domlition, no-plane, pod, etc. ) You have a situation where you feel that the other camp is ignoring the physical evidence. And a situation where physical evidence is being kept secret.

In the areas that Ruppert have been investigating, you´ll have access to some physical evidence, and to most of it not.

You´re going to tell me that you know what kind of investigation Ruppert has done, and that he has ignored the physical evidence that is available?

You´re going to tell me that he said so himself, just there?

I don´t think so.

[MercutioATC]

46. I'm commenting on the quote chosen by another poster.

Again, I think that looking at the events in the context of "watching the suspects" is interesting, but it can only change the position from which you view the physical evidence. In the end, the actual physical evidence must be accounted for.

[k-robjoe]

47. Well, as long as I´m getting through

to you that Rupperts words must seen in a context.

A context where he has taken a lot of crap because he has not been willing to deal with theories of demolition, no plane etc.

And in defending his position he has referred to all that stuff as the "physical evidence".

And you didn´t know the context, and so you got your idea of his "methodology" ( A good cop ignores physical evdence ) that is a completely mistaken.

[MercutioATC]

48. I'll read some of his stuff.

As I said, I was just responding to the quote. I'll look into it further.

Thanks :hi:

[reorg]

42. I agree - in part

The single most damning evidence in this case is the answer to the question: who profits?

While it is hard to construe motives for well-educated young individuals -- well-adapted to the Western world and way of life -- to commit mass murder and "martyr" themselves in the process: Nobody can deny the plausibility of motive on the part of certain factions in the US government seeking justification for a major policy change, and a profitable one, to boot.

OTOH, it cannot be wrong to point out single items of physical evidence in a public forum. Skepticism of the official version is not a minority view. It reaches deep even into "moderate" or conservative mainland. So why wouldn't we discuss it here and elsewhere? Because some "debunkers" feel profoundly challenged in their world view by our suspicions?

The fear of alienating possible swing voters by that is unfounded, IMO. You either have this unshakable belief that the government can do no wrong, not beyond diverting a little dough or having casual sex, that is -- in this case you won't pay attention to "conspiracy theories", anyway. Or you acknowledge that authority must be challenged in each and every way -- in this case you will be able to rationally debate items of physical evidence. Without the obsession to "win" and without compulsively putting down your opponent.

What we occasionally observe in online discussions has nothing to do with the 9/11 issue in particular, I believe. It is just a normal characteristic of online debates. People who have nothing better to do engage in un-ending squabbles: we should congratulate their neighbors for getting spared, thanks to this extraordinary opportunity for psychological relief ;-)

[Dover]

44. Protesters Allege 9/11 Terror Attacks Were Government Conspiracy

Protesters Allege 9/11 Terror Attacks Were Government Conspiracy

By Marc Morano

CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 03, 2004

New York (CNSNews.com) - On the final day of the Republican National Convention, protesters gathered where the World Trade Center once stood to allege a massive government conspiracy and cover-up regarding the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

The afternoon event, sponsored by 911truth.org, was called "Vigil For Truth at Ground Zero."

"9/11 was an inside job, a fraud, a scam, equivalent of the of the Reichstag that led to a reign of terror across Nazi Europe. And it seems like that's what is happening now," protestor David Hylander told CNSNews.com.

The burning of the Reichstag, Germany's parliament building, in 1931 gave Adolph Hitler the opportunity to consolidate his power and suppress civil liberties.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5C...


http://summeroftruth.org
http://911truth.org

[graphixtech]

50. Blast the Zogby poll to the media!

Please contact your local paper and ask them to cover the Zogby poll here:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Here is a recent letter from Dr. Robert Bowman:
(Credentials: Lieutenant Colonel, retired USAF;
President, Institute for Space & Security Studies;
Presiding Archbishop, United Catholic Church;
author, “Some Dare Call It Treason")

"Dear Fellow Patriot,

I urge each of you to get involved with the
International 9/11 Truth movement as requested by Ed Asner in his recent letter to the anti-war community. Mr. Asner has stated in an eloquent, yet low-key way the case for all of us
to stand and work together until the truth about this “New Pearl Harbor” is seen and understood by all Americans.

"We simply cannot ignore the fact that elements of the US government at the highest levels may have committed treason and mass murder by purposely allowing 9/11 to happen. The scores of lies and contradictions that riddle
the official story have long been obvious, as have the thousands of lives and profiteered billions their 9/11-justified wars have cost.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman
Lieutenant Colonel, retired USAF;
President, Institute for Space & Security Studies;
Presiding Archbishop, United Catholic Church;
author, “Some Dare Call It Treason"


http://www.911truth.org/

[NecessaryOnslaught]

84. Research by former DUer Ewing2001 in Ruppets book

"In April and May of 2004 I found it after author Barbara Honegger, a senior military affairs journalist with the Department of Defense, and a talented, if erratic, 9/11 researcher named Nico Haupt had again started asking questions in a 9/11 internet discussion group about the role of a war game exercise on that day."

........."Honegger’s material was good and I was only able to
find one or two small stories that she and Haupt had missed. What they revealed, however, has become — in my opinion — the Holy Grail of 9/11 research."

http://www.newsociety.com/News/rub_war.pdf

The DU archives are a goldmine.

"in a 9/11 internet discussion group"..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?forum=DCForumID43&az=list&archive=yes