National Geographic to air 9/11 conspiracy doc

[thatsmystory]

But seriously, Mark Roberts and all these debunkers might work well against the Loose Change/Kevin Barret/David Ray Griffin/Alex Jones types...but I would lovvvve to see them try and go head to head with Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, etc.

The lack of curiosity of some debunkers is rather odd. Why do they tend to focus exclusively on debunking 9/11 skeptics? For sure, they are right about some of the characteristics of 9/11 truthers but why don't they ever focus on the people in power? Employing such a double standard comes across as authoritarian.

[8bitagent]

There is a good book called Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 by Wayne Barrett. Barrett discusses the decision making process of putting the emergency command center in Building 7. And he goes into depth about the failed process of upgrading firefighter radios.

The book adds some context to the story of Building 7.

You know what's interesting? Jerome Hauer, largely attributed as being the man behind the "fortified emergency command bunker" in floor 23, has been in a number of new documentaries speaking ill of Larry Silverstein and Rudy Guiliani. As Hauer has figured prominently in a number of conspiracy films, Hauer is weaving a narrative that Silverstein not only allegedly coerced and paid Guiliani to have the ECB for the city of NYC in WTC7...but Hauer also claims that it was Silverstein that had John Oneil work for the WTC security the day of 9/11.

The documentary I saw by Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films goes in depth about the Guiliani-Silverstein-Hauter ECB Floor 23 WTC7 controversy, the Motorola radio scam, etc.
Check out all three parts here:
http://therealrudy.org/

And for the explosive new interview Sander Hicks does with Hauer
regarding WTC7, John Oneil and Silverstein check out the new
9/11 Research documentary "Core of Corruption"(which also goes deep into Saudi involvement, al Midhar/al Hazmi, and a ton of other stuff never covered before in a 9/11 truth film)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=c ... orruption#

[8bitagent]

But seriously, Mark Roberts and all these debunkers might work well against the Loose Change/Kevin Barret/David Ray Griffin/Alex Jones types...but I would lovvvve to see them try and go head to head with Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, etc.

The lack of curiosity of some debunkers is rather odd. Why do they tend to focus exclusively on debunking 9/11 skeptics? For sure, they are right about some of the characteristics of 9/11 truthers but why don't they ever focus on the people in power? Employing such a double standard comes across as authoritarian.

Yeah it is curious. I've said to one of them online "How come you don't employ this kind of obsession with debunking 9/11 theorists toward debunking theorists who allege the government lied to go into Iraq or steal the 2000 election?"

Also, the complete disinterest in looking at anything other than "debunking the physical anomaly theories" seems odd.
Some debunker sites do have sections dealing with al Qaeda...however, a lot of times they have to rely on HistoryCommons.org(AKA Cooperative Research), the ultimate 9/11 truther site in my view.

There was a trial not long ago in Boston regarding a charity owner and furniture store man connected to Ptech and the al Kifah Center/Care International. Evidence showed the clear trail from the first World Trade Center 1993 leading back to these Ptech circle of charities and businesses in the Mass. area. But hardly any mention of it outside of a few Boston newspapers.

And even more recently a lot of news regarding a lawsuit detailing the Saudi government and related corporation involvement in 9/11 and the infrastructure of the bin Laden network. Again, barely a mention in truther or skeptic circles.

It seems both 9/11 researchers and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers seem all too interested in examining the role of finances, hijackers, terror charities and al Qaeda...and seem content on tit for tat obsession over arguing "melting points of steel".

[Sweejak]

Trailer
9/11 Impact Anatomy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FVAzn1Yuz8

[thatsmystory]

Well for one, why is there such a detailed, wide ranging report of so many planes containing pre planted knives? Is this to mean that the four flights also had preplanted knives where the hijackers seats were?

Also, wasnt this flight in particular grounded before they could get on board? In the early days of 9/11 reporting, there was a clear theme from all over regarding the idea of an "airport employee inside job". I think this is entirely possible.

As for why get upset...well wasnt it Atta and al-Omari(or the Buhkari Brothers?) who got into a near fight with some random guy in the airport
parking lot? Wasnt it Atta and others who got beligerent in strip clubs, bars...and according to some reports, the Oklahoma City Bombing Museum? So many of the hijackers had short fuses, getting pulled over. Going to the cops to report stolen stuff. KSM even was arrested when he visited America. These guys did NOT blend in, and the "takfir" explanation of their obsession with porn, sex toys, drugs, strippers, and hookers absolutely does not fly. As investigators have said, these guys wanted to leave an intentional breadcrumb trail.
"Cool calm and collected" was not an asset that the hijackers always possessed.

Again, if we are to believe actor James Woods, law enforcement, FBI, witnesses, investigators, researchers, etc: then there was a LOT more than just the "19" who were on board flights or preparing for plane hijackings. Why would these guys make big scenes? Either they are that idiotic, or that was what they were intended to do.

The documentary Between the Lies has footage mostly from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13. I believe that is why the TV coverage of United 23 is so lacking. The print reports go into detail regarding the boarding. As best I can tell the plane was very close to take off before the pilot received a warning and decided not to take off.

The variance in the print accounts still leaves open the possibility that there is some disinfo involved. The bottom line is that we would need to know whether the FBI conducted a proper investigation and what the results of that investigation determined.

You make a good point about the possibility that the hijackers may have intentionally attracted attention. Of course this doesn't mesh with the narrative of a sophisticated terrorist outfit. It does suggest an intelligence operation (i.e. along the lines of Oswald attracting attention). This in turn raises the possibility of doubles attracting attention for some operational purpose. I think it's safe to say that it's rather strange for suicide hijackers to get upset about a parking space on the morning of their mission.

In relation to hijackers trying to get into the US, Yosri Fouda writes in his book that Bin al-Shibh wanted to be a hijacker but his visa was rejected because of a State Department restriction on Yemeni visas. Al Qaeda couldn't forge documents to get Bin al-Shibh into the country? There are so many weird details like this that don't make sense.

[thatsmystory]

There is a good book called Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 by Wayne Barrett. Barrett discusses the decision making process of putting the emergency command center in Building 7. And he goes into depth about the failed process of upgrading firefighter radios.

The book adds some context to the story of Building 7.

You know what's interesting? Jerome Hauer, largely attributed as being the man behind the "fortified emergency command bunker" in floor 23, has been in a number of new documentaries speaking ill of Larry Silverstein and Rudy Guiliani. As Hauer has figured prominently in a number of conspiracy films, Hauer is weaving a narrative that Silverstein not only allegedly coerced and paid Guiliani to have the ECB for the city of NYC in WTC7...but Hauer also claims that it was Silverstein that had John Oneil work for the WTC security the day of 9/11.

The documentary I saw by Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films goes in depth about the Guiliani-Silverstein-Hauter ECB Floor 23 WTC7 controversy, the Motorola radio scam, etc.
Check out all three parts here:
http://therealrudy.org/

And for the explosive new interview Sander Hicks does with Hauer
regarding WTC7, John Oneil and Silverstein check out the new
9/11 Research documentary "Core of Corruption"(which also goes deep into Saudi involvement, al Midhar/al Hazmi, and a ton of other stuff never covered before in a 9/11 truth film)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=c ... orruption#

I watched Core of Corruption. That was pretty solid.

In Barrett's book, Hauer claims he warned Giuliani not to put the EMC in WTC 7 but Giuliani stubbornly wouldn't listen to reason.

You can find the full Hicks/Hauer conversation somewhere on the web. I found it odd. I couldn't understand why Hauer didn't simply hang up.

The O'Neill story sure seems like a huge piece of the puzzle. Some intel officials have alleged that acting FBI director Pickard was behind the setup of O'Neill. One theory is that the CIA waited until O'Neill was gone before notifying the FBI about al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar. I don't think this is true. In accounts about O'Neill it is clear he wasn't too involved in day to day operations as he got closer to leaving. Also, the FBI ITOS division (specifically the UBLU) received the cable from the CIA. They proceeded to keep the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdar information from the Cole investigators.

[8bitagent]

The documentary Between the Lies has footage mostly from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13. I believe that is why the TV coverage of United 23 is so lacking. The print reports go into detail regarding the boarding. As best I can tell the plane was very close to take off before the pilot received a warning and decided not to take off.

Damn good point. I mean, I admit I don't know what's true or not in the media. Did Pakistani ISI really give $100,000 to Atta? Was there really knives found preplanted on the seats of some planes? Was there really Israeli spies seen in NYC on 9/11?
Was Hani Hanjour really the pilot of Flight 77? I have no idea what is even real in the news. Other news confirms United 23 about be given the green light. We know some ATC text messaged pilots in the air and ground to reinforce the cockpit and beware, because hijackings were going on. To this day I cannot explain how a few skinny jihadists with boxcutters did away with eight burly military vet pilots with no struggle.

The variance in the print accounts still leaves open the possibility that there is some disinfo involved. The bottom line is that we would need to know whether the FBI conducted a proper investigation and what the results of that investigation determined.

It sounds odd, but I almost feel like the FBI were the good guys in the 9/11 saga. (Colleen Rowley, Ken Williams, Harry Samit, John Oneil,
Robert Wright, etc)
This 2008 FOIA request of the FBI Hijacker Timeline to me is the most jaw dropping and frightening 9/11 report I've seen:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 6195228169

You make a good point about the possibility that the hijackers may have intentionally attracted attention. Of course this doesn't mesh with the narrative of a sophisticated terrorist outfit. It does suggest an intelligence operation (i.e. along the lines of Oswald attracting attention). This in turn raises the possibility of doubles attracting attention for some operational purpose. I think it's safe to say that it's rather strange for suicide hijackers to get upset about a parking space on the morning of their mission.

Real quick, wanted to mention that there are 9/11 researchers on our side pouring through tens of thousands of archived documents. So many bombshells coming out, like today: CIA purposefully withheld lots of information, names, etc from the FBI regarding bin Attash, al Mihdhar, USS Cole suspects and the Kuala Lampar meeting:
http://911blogger.com/node/21028

Well again, my mentioning of "intentionally" being loud and obnoxious implies they almost wanted to get caught. It is odd...the 9/11 commission and investigators destroyed the real hijacker timeline and left huge gaps in the 1999-2001 timeline. I have heard the theory of the doubles.
People in truth research might say "the hijackers dont matter", I feel they are the most important aspect. The government says "these hijackers did this"...well I say ok, lets look into who these guys were and their every move.

See, I keep wondering...why have cops, investigators and FBI insisted
that there were many accomplices to the hijackers they had to let go or didnt get to pursue?
Now maybe the hijackers knew they were being protected...afterall,
they make an obvious stink for two years and never once is the plot foiled? They had CIA, FBI, Pentagon Able Danger, NSA, etc on their ass...yet nothing? Its like they were daring to get caught. Ramzi binAlshidh claims they would have aborted 9/11 had they known Moussaoui was caught? Another lie from al Qaeda.

In relation to hijackers trying to get into the US, Yosri Fouda writes in his book that Bin al-Shibh wanted to be a hijacker but his visa was rejected because of a State Department restriction on Yemeni visas. Al Qaeda couldn't forge documents to get Bin al-Shibh into the country? There are so many weird details like this that don't make sense.

I need to actually get a copy of his 2002 "Road to September 11th" documentary, and check out his book. (I also need to check out Bosnia Jihad, The Looming Tower, 1000 Years for Revenge, and The Dubai Banking system and 9/11)

But yeah, the official story is that bin alShibh really really wanted to "martyr" for the big tuesday wedding planes operation, but couldn't get a visa. I mean what, he couldn't get in on Saudi's criminally complicit and suspicious summer 2001 "Visa Fast Track program"?
Freaking KSM even had a visa for America, and got arrested at one point in the US briefly. Zawahiri was touring Northern California with Ali Mohamed in the mid 1990's. Even bin Laden himself was rumored to have visited the US...and I aint talking the late 1970's medical visit.

My feeling is, from reading the 9/11 Commission...looking into the "al Qaeda computer" file report, reading what KSM and Ramzi bin alshibh said, etc that al Qaeda only THOUGHT they were control.

9/11 stopped being their baby a long time ago, and I even have doubts that the meme of flying planes into important buildings or the WTC as a target was ever originally from the mind of Ramzi Yousef or KSM.

al Qaeda is very real, but small...and well, not as bright as they think they are. Their hawallas, banking money trails, message systems, organization, etc is laughable and I have no doubt these clowns couldnt orchestrate a REAL terror attack by themselves. the Shoebomber incident anyone?
Thats what happens when al Qaeda tries a terror attack on their own.


Btw, THIS was on MSNBC today

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32600262/ns ... terrorism/

Father not always a favorite
But, his father and boss has not always been a favorite of American officials. Nayef, 76, is seen as anti-American and not as anti-radical as the U.S. would like him to be.

Even though Osama Bin Laden singled out Nayef (along with the late King Fahd and then defense minister, now crown prince, Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al Said) as “the source of the disease” in Saudi Arabia, he was one of the Saudi ministers who suggested that the 9/11 attacks were not conceived in Islam. Rather, he hinted darkly, bin Laden was “a tool” of others because the Saudi hijackers did not seem to have “the capability to act in such a professional way.” The suggestion was that Saudi Arabia was not responsible for the attacks.

Nayef also ran the “Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Quds Intifada,” which has distributed tens of millions of dollars to Palestinians, including payments to the families of “martyrs,” or suicide bombers, as well as those whose homes have been destroyed by the Israeli military. Nayef is also general supervisor of the Joint Saudi Committee for the Relief of Kosovo and Chechnya.

Well this guy speaks the truth. Bin Laden and al Qaeda are positively "tools" of other forces.

And its no secret that the backbone of 9/11 and Islamic terrorism was
indeed the Balkans conflict and Chechnya.

Remember these?

"9/11 Probes Clear Saudi Arabia Involvement"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3815179.stm

The article talks about how all the "rumors" of Saudi involvement were proven "false" by the 9/11 commission

Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's long-standing ambassador in Washington, was at one point implicated for making donations worth $130,000 to the wives of two friends of the hijackers in San Diego.

But the commission report said there is no evidence that the two men, Osama Basnan and the other Saudi, Omar al-Bayoumi, provided funding to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.

Well this is a lie, because we know for a fact Omar al-Bayoumi not only has Saudi GID connections, but personally housed/financed/etc al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.

"Saudi Arabia Was Intimately Tracking The 19 Hijackers Every Move"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html

Well duh! Just funny how Prince Bandar makes it sound like they were being the good guys in all this

Sept 2007, ABC: Saudi Arabian elites still financing al Qaeda
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 ... still.html

Finally, we need to mention Aafia Siddiqui, the "grey lady of al Qaeda".
The government of Saudi Arabia was caught financing her leading up to 9/11, even tho she was the head of al Kifah(now renamed Care Intl under the Ptech banner in Boston. Al Kifah of course being MAK/al Qaeda's American branch)

Aafia Siddiqui, KSM's go to girl, is another pivotal mystery in the story of both 9/11 and al Qaeda.
Sadly, she's been beaten and raped horrifically by the US and other countries...the US and Western allies certainly like to protect certain al Qaeda associates while torturing others.

Great forum post on Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11, al Hazmi and al Mihdhar, as well as Aafia Siddiqui
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=78572.0

[8bitagent]

I watched Core of Corruption. That was pretty solid.

In Barrett's book, Hauer claims he warned Giuliani not to put the EMC in WTC 7 but Giuliani stubbornly wouldn't listen to reason.

You can find the full Hicks/Hauer conversation somewhere on the web. I found it odd. I couldn't understand why Hauer didn't simply hang up.

The O'Neill story sure seems like a huge piece of the puzzle. Some intel officials have alleged that acting FBI director Pickard was behind the setup of O'Neill. One theory is that the CIA waited until O'Neill was gone before notifying the FBI about al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar. I don't think this is true. In accounts about O'Neill it is clear he wasn't too involved in day to day operations as he got closer to leaving. Also, the FBI ITOS division (specifically the UBLU) received the cable from the CIA. They proceeded to keep the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdar information from the Cole investigators.

Im so glad you saw Core of Corruption. There seems to be very few really solid 9/11 documentaries. Press For Truth, Atta and the Venice Flying Circus and In Their Own Words come to mind, as well as HBO's the Journalist and the Jihadi.

Man, isn't John Oneil the mystery or what? Did you see PBS Front Line's "The Man Who Knew" documentary(its on their site for free to watch)
NO WONDER they had him killed. Probably in their minds a human sacrifice.

John Oneil is pulling his hair out for years about Ramzi Yousef, KSM, al Qaeda and bin Laden yet is blocked and hampered at every moment. Then has his personal life destroyed(at the infamous Madrid Spain March 2001 "counter terror conference" Oneil was at, several of the 9/11 hijackers coincidentally were also staying that weekend at the hotel)

Yeah its clear there was a big coverup of the Kuala Lampar meeting and subsequent al Midhar/al Hazmi flight to America.
Have you seen PBS "The Shadow Factory"? Much of the documentary is on these two hijackers, and the NSA eavesdropping on al Qaeda from 1996-2001, as well as the CIA in Kuala Lampar. It's so obvious, because people living at that condo(owned by Yuzid Sufaat) were ending up in Norman Oklahoma and San Diego.

Able Danger was tracking these guys, the CIA was tracking them, German BND was tracking the Hamburg cell, NSA was eavesdropping.
Yet this was all kept from the FBI, the only guys actively trying to go after bin Laden financing and flight school terrorists. No way half those hijackers should have been allowed to board those flights.

Again, I cant stress enough how the "Reno Wall/Incompetence" answer does not stand up to scrutiny.

As for Hauer...maybe he has a grudge to settle with Guiliani and Silverstein, so is speaking to "truthers" to deflect attention on him...or he's just sick enough to want to thrust himself into the truther world to muddy the waters. Who knows what he is saying is the truth...
however, I am curious just what Hauer knows. He was the FIRST "official" on mainstream media right as the attacks happened to say "oh no Dan Rather, thats not a collapse from bombs...thats melted steel from the planes. And its obvious the guy behind this was bin Laden"

WTC7 btw, had the US headquarters of Standard Chatered Bank. SCB in Dubai is where a good portion of the 9/11 money was being ran through.
I wonder if WTC7 had any software running from...

[Sweejak]

Sander Hicks

(NEW YORK) You know the world is really coming to an end when the New York Post lets me, a leading 9/11 Truther, effectively review, and pan, the new anti-Truther documentary, National Geographic Channel's "9/11: Science and Conspiracy." But that's what happened today. Read it online, or see my scan of the print piece. My jaw is still on the floor.

http://wedemandtransparency.com/javajackass.html

Old 9-11 brochure flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18528948@N ... 033808694/

And the only person i know of who has talked about concrete cores:
http://concretecore.741.com/

I saw an early version of the Purdue simulation, it's very impressive.

[Searcher08]

But seriously, Mark Roberts and all these debunkers might work well against the Loose Change/Kevin Barret/David Ray Griffin/Alex Jones types...but I would lovvvve to see them try and go head to head with Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, etc.

The lack of curiosity of some debunkers is rather odd. Why do they tend to focus exclusively on debunking 9/11 skeptics? For sure, they are right about some of the characteristics of 9/11 truthers but why don't they ever focus on the people in power? Employing such a double standard comes across as authoritarian.

I remember years ago exchanging some e-mails with one of Mark Robert's associates. I distanced myself from the 'physical evidence' people and wanted to dialogue about the Peter Dale Scott / Indira Singh / Sibel Edmonds deep state aspects. I found out they had not even heard of them, so that was really the end of that.

I was curious and surprised to see how many JREF skeptics self-reported being under treatment with SSRIs for depression.

A couple of years later, the screwloosechange blog (how accurate, but not for the reasons it was created) slammed Sibel Edmonds as a raving moonbat or a mooning ravebat or full of WOO blah blah, at which point I lost any interest in engaging them. I see that the 911myths.com site is teeming with deep state references, scenarios and analysis.

[8bitagent]

But seriously, Mark Roberts and all these debunkers might work well against the Loose Change/Kevin Barret/David Ray Griffin/Alex Jones types...but I would lovvvve to see them try and go head to head with Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, etc.

The lack of curiosity of some debunkers is rather odd. Why do they tend to focus exclusively on debunking 9/11 skeptics? For sure, they are right about some of the characteristics of 9/11 truthers but why don't they ever focus on the people in power? Employing such a double standard comes across as authoritarian.

I remember years ago exchanging some e-mails with one of Mark Robert's associates. I distanced myself from the 'physical evidence' people and wanted to dialogue about the Peter Dale Scott / Indira Singh / Sibel Edmonds deep state aspects. I found out they had not even heard of them, so that was really the end of that.

I was curious and surprised to see how many JREF skeptics self-reported being under treatment with SSRIs for depression.

A couple of years later, the screwloosechange blog (how accurate, but not for the reasons it was created) slammed Sibel Edmonds as a raving moonbat or a mooning ravebat or full of WOO blah blah, at which point I lost any interest in engaging them. I see that the 911myths.com site is teeming with deep state references, scenarios and analysis.

Well ScrewLooseChange is a conservative leaning site, while other 9/11 "debunker" sites are more left or centrist apparently(meaning they claim to be against the wars and Bush)

These debunker sites say "Truthers are wrong, al Qaeda is real and was behind 9/11". I say to the debunkers: "Ok. Lets go with that, Ive got no problem looking through that line of thinking....but this means we have to
fully examine their role. And you might not like what you find".

I personally have come to like there being debunker sites. If all you have are "truther" sites, it becomes a feedback loop. And you end up with a
bunch of half truths and elephant telephone game information. For instance, the makers of Loose Change admit that their early efforts
are riddled with even what they'd admit are erroneous errors(I'd say most of Loose Change is a red herring)

I myself have an incredibly hard time believing that "Flight 77 didnt hit the pentagon". This notion that that plane parts, passenger body parts,
and even burned passport/ID and personal effects were planted seems way too far fetched.

911myths has a few 'deep state' related sections. The tactic of that British debunker site is to offer a different interpretation on everything the alternate 9/11 circles espouse. So he has a section on Pakistani ISI connections, or put options.

I noticed right leaning "debunker" site Littlegreenfootballs from time to time, like WorldNetDaily(and even Fox) has some rather good information. Some of these sites covered the Ptech/Care/Logan Furniture
debacle in Boston a couple years ago. Bill O'reilly had a whole thing on
the connections between Oklahoma City Bombing and 9/11. And Fox had the 4 part special on Israel and 9/11.

But back to debunker vs truther sites: way too much bias, protecting *their* stake and pet theories in the game.

This is why I love and cant say enough good things about HistoryCommons.org. However, both debunkers and truthers I think may have some issues with the site. For truthers, you pretty much have to acknowledge that al Qaeda and global jihad is real and allow yourself to adjust to the idea of bin Laden's inner nexus for the site to work. A lot of truthers dont do this, because they think it might pop their well invested theory of "the government did 9/11". And debunkers might like the site because it pulls the theater curtain way back; warts and all on the complete history of Islamic terrorism. And this includes financing, assets, and protection that didnt quite end in the "Soviet Afghan war days".

This is why I say both truthers and debunkers should widen their scope and be open to a full spectrum interpretation...much as Peter Dale Scott in this article mentions:
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/artic ... l-drug.htm

[thatsmystory]

I remember years ago exchanging some e-mails with one of Mark Robert's associates. I distanced myself from the 'physical evidence' people and wanted to dialogue about the Peter Dale Scott / Indira Singh / Sibel Edmonds deep state aspects. I found out they had not even heard of them, so that was really the end of that.

I was curious and surprised to see how many JREF skeptics self-reported being under treatment with SSRIs for depression.

A couple of years later, the screwloosechange blog (how accurate, but not for the reasons it was created) slammed Sibel Edmonds as a raving moonbat or a mooning ravebat or full of WOO blah blah, at which point I lost any interest in engaging them. I see that the 911myths.com site is teeming with deep state references, scenarios and analysis.

I've spent a fair amount of time on "debunking sites." I have learned a lot. IMO they are right that some truthers are too willing to accept sources based on one issue agreement (9/11).

My response to them (in relation to their double standard) is that 9/11 concerns all citizens. Meaning everybody in the country should want answers about 9/11. They should want answers. They shouldn't be content with the cover up. It's bizarre to hold powerful officials to such a low standard of conduct.

[8bitagent]

I've spent a fair amount of time on "debunking sites." I have learned a lot. IMO they are right that some truthers are too willing to accept sources based on one issue agreement (9/11).

My response to them (in relation to their double standard) is that 9/11 concerns all citizens. Meaning everybody in the country should want answers about 9/11. They should want answers. They shouldn't be content with the cover up. It's bizarre to hold powerful officials to such a low standard of conduct.

True.

I think what sticks in these debunker's craw is the notion that the blame for 9/11 shifts from Islamic terrorists to the "government" itself as a monolithic entity or people within. And not in a "dropped the ball" kind of way which a lot of them would agree on. But as a "planned and executed" sort of thing. I personally was never satisfied with that explanation of 9/11 either.

As you made mention in earlier posts, taking a wide angle lens on al Qaeda and their role in 9/11, they seem to ride a little too much on blind luck and haphazard decisions.

[thatsmystory]

It sounds odd, but I almost feel like the FBI were the good guys in the 9/11 saga. (Colleen Rowley, Ken Williams, Harry Samit, John Oneil,
Robert Wright, etc)
This 2008 FOIA request of the FBI Hijacker Timeline to me is the most jaw dropping and frightening 9/11 report I've seen:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 6195228169

There appears to be a split between the intel side and the criminal side. Much of the FBI's questionable conduct was found in intel side units. As best I could determine the agents out of the NY office were criminal side agents. I think Peter Lance referred to this office as the I-49 taskforce. JTTF of FBI agents and NYPD detectives. There also appeared to be overlap as FBI agent Dan Coleman was a member of Alec Station, took part in criminal investigations (i.e. the 1998 embassy bombings) and also did intelligence analysis.

The ITOS divisions were located at FBI headquarters in D.C. The deputy chief of Alec Station--Tom Wilshire--actually moved over to the FBI in (I believe) June of '01. He functioned as basically a supervisor to the RFU and UBLU. What happened to the turf battle? Why were high level FBI agents taking orders from a CIA officer?

I watched the documentary On Native Soil. In the extras there is an interview with Dale Watson who headed the Counterterrorism Division in the lead up to 9/11. He talks about how underfunded and undermanned the FBI was and how overwhelmed with leads the CT Division was at the time. Of course he doesn't mention the BIZARRE conduct of the RFU and UBLU units whose unit chiefs and SSA's seemed to go out of their way to obstruct al Qaeda related investigations.

I did watch the Frontline documentary on O'Neill and read the book by Murray Weiss. There are some details on the Cole investigation in the book that I don't recall finding anywhere else. One very odd aspect of the O'Neill story is that one of his friends was Fran Townsend. The same Fran Townsend who went on to become Bush's Homeland security adviser and advocate of torture. Didn't she have a problem with the Bush White House in relation to their pre-9/11 conduct? Evidently not. I think she is key because like Clarke and Tenet she worked for Clinton and Bush administrations. The continuity is important.

IMO, there is a disconnect in the views of officials like O'Neill, Clarke and Scheuer. All are known for their early identification of the threat posed by al Qaeda. Yet the issue of al Qaeda's capability is overlooked. To be fair O'Neill seemed to realize things weren't on the up and up and proceeded to talk to Brisard and Dasquie.

[8bitagent]

There appears to be a split between the intel side and the criminal side. Much of the FBI's questionable conduct was found in intel side units. As best I could determine the agents out of the NY office were criminal side agents. I think Peter Lance referred to this office as the I-49 taskforce. JTTF of FBI agents and NYPD detectives. There also appeared to be overlap as FBI agent Dan Coleman was a member of Alec Station, took part in criminal investigations (i.e. the 1998 embassy bombings) and also did intelligence analysis.

The ITOS divisions were located at FBI headquarters in D.C. The deputy chief of Alec Station--Tom Wilshire--actually moved over to the FBI in (I believe) June of '01. He functioned as basically a supervisor to the RFU and UBLU. What happened to the turf battle? Why were high level FBI agents taking orders from a CIA officer?

I watched the documentary On Native Soil. In the extras there is an interview with Dale Watson who headed the Counterterrorism Division in the lead up to 9/11. He talks about how underfunded and undermanned the FBI was and how overwhelmed with leads the CT Division was at the time. Of course he doesn't mention the BIZARRE conduct of the RFU and UBLU units whose unit chiefs and SSA's seemed to go out of their way to obstruct al Qaeda related investigations.

I did watch the Frontline documentary on O'Neill and read the book by Murray Weiss. There are some details on the Cole investigation in the book that I don't recall finding anywhere else. One very odd aspect of the O'Neill story is that one of his friends was Fran Townsend. The same Fran Townsend who went on to become Bush's Homeland security adviser and advocate of torture. Didn't she have a problem with the Bush White House in relation to their pre-9/11 conduct? Evidently not. I think she is key because like Clarke and Tenet she worked for Clinton and Bush administrations. The continuity is important.

IMO, there is a disconnect in the views of officials like O'Neill, Clarke and Scheuer. All are known for their early identification of the threat posed by al Qaeda. Yet the issue of al Qaeda's capability is overlooked. To be fair O'Neill seemed to realize things weren't on the up and up and proceeded to talk to Brisard and Dasquie.

Well maybe I'm reading too much into it, but didn't at a certain point O'neil begin to get suspicious about the endless shutdowns of his bin Laden pursuits and the complete sidelining of his efforts?

Also, I have to say Peter Lance is one of the most explosive 9/11 researchers on the planet, next to Loretta Napoliani and Daniel Hopsicker.

Peter Lance detailed how the "criminal NY FBI"(couldnt agree more with that assertion) had Ramzi Yousef for 11 months from 1996 til 1997 in a Lower Manhattan jail cell. And he details how the FBI concocted this bizarre plot to place Mob Boss son Greg Scarpa Jr in between Ramzi Yousef and another jihadist inmate. Then had him agree to gain the trust of Yousef, and have Yousef place calls to Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and other top al Qaeda operatives...routing calls from the Manhattan jail phone through a dummy corporation front called "Roma Corp".
And obviously, this would be where the 9/11 plans would be flowing in that 96-97 timeframe. I swear, you cant make up this story, yet virtually no truther nor anyone ever mentions this story
(I dont know if I buy Peter Lance's take that TWA 800 was a terrorist attack, but Im open minded)

I'm interested in the REAL origin of the 9/11 attacks. Who came up with the idea? We know Ali Mohamed trained some of the WTC 1993 terrorists in New Jersey back in 1989. And that the Al Farooq mosque/Al Kifah Refugee center was used in Brooklyn.
We know that Filipino authorities found Ramzi's laptop in 1995 that had plans to fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon(Bojinka Phase Three)
We know this is the circle as well, that killed the radical Rabbi Khahane in November 1990, and event many believe triggered the road to 9/11 11 years later.

Where do you think the evidence leads? I find it astonishing that cops in November of 1990 found blueprints of the WTC and Fort Bragg army manuals on exploding buildings in El-Nossair's house.

I'm doing my usual rambling, so back to topic.
Yes, it's very weird you see intel FBI and very in depth FBI-CIA CT
stuff going on when we are told "there was no sharing, and a big wall between CIA, Pentagon, NSA and FBI".

It is true that the three names we think of when it comes to
"the men who created the bin Laden/al Qaeda" legend are
princibly John O'neil, Richard Clarke and Schuer.

However, have you read into Cofer Black?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofer_Blac ... _1999-2001

Man, this guy brags he inserted a fake "al Qaeda" cell into bin Laden's inner circle from 1999-2001.

There's a whole blog on all the reports of the CIA having penetrated the highest levels of bin Laden's inner circle and 9.11
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/20 ... s-had.html

Also, from what I gather from 1997 til 2001, al Qaeda had an actual office
in downtown Kabul...but used a switchboard in a Yemeni safehouse that the NSA was eavesdropping on since 1996? Yet, bin Laden himself was tucked away apart from the AQ "office" during most his time in Afghanistan?

I feel that bin Laden should at least be doing time for ordering the destruction of those two statues:)

Btw, FWIW here's all the 9/11 documentaries I've seen

Press For Truth
Zero
In Their Own Words
The Falling Man
On Native Soil
9/11(CBS 2002)
Triple Cross: Bin Laden's Spy In America
The Secret History of 9/11(mainstream, but good doc)
Core Of Corruption
Loose Change Final Cut
Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State
The Road To Shanksville
The Man Who Knew
The Journalist And The Jihadi(documentary on Omar Saeed)
Flight 175: As The World Watched
Between The Lies
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
9/11 Mysteries
Improbable Collapse

Sometimes I end up preferring the "mainstream" tv specials about al Qaeda, just in that they sometimes have bigger nuggets of info than the usual "watch the twin towers collapse in slow motion for the thousandth time" sort of 9/11 documentaries.