← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster

Thread 6572

Thread ID: 6572 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2003-05-09

Wayback Archive

Zoroaster [OP]

2003-05-09 13:29 | User Profile

[url=http://www.msnbc.com/news/910676.asp]http://www.msnbc.com/news/910676.asp[/url]

September 11 Showdown
Will the White House block a terror panel’s access to critical documents? Plus, here’s another reason to badmouth France

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

  May 7 —  An imminent and potentially nasty confrontation over an independent commission’s authority to investigate the White House’s handling of the September 11 terror attacks was narrowly averted last week—just before President Bush landed a jet aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in a carefully crafted ceremony touting the toppling of Saddam Hussein as a major victory in the war on terrorism.

  BUT THE BATTLE over the issue is far from over. In fact, NEWSWEEK has learned, President Bush’s chief lawyer has privately signaled that the White House may seek to invoke executive privilege over key documents relating to the attacks in order to keep them out of the hands of investigators for the National Commission on Terror Attacks Upon the United States—the independent panel created by Congress to probe all aspects of 9-11.
   Some commission members now fear a showdown over the issue—particularly over extremely sensitive National Security Council minutes and presidential briefing papers—could be coming in the next few weeks. “We do think it’s important to engage this issue relatively early—i.e., now,” says Philip Zelikow, the executive director for the commission, who is negotiating with administration lawyers to inspect documents and interview senior officials.
   Zelikow says he is still hopeful an accommodation can be reached with administration lawyers and that the issue is now in the hands of senior officials in the White House. But he made it clear that the 9-11 panel has no intention of backing down from its insistence that it receive full access to a wide range of material that has never been reviewed by any outside body—much less made public. “We expect to get what we need,” Zelikow says. “We’re not going to go quietly into that good night.”
   Zelikow’s comments, and even stronger ones from some commission members, suggest that last week’s brief contretemps over access to transcripts of secret congressional testimony was only one small flare-up in a much broader and potentially high-stakes struggle that could ultimately wind up in federal court.
   Just two weeks ago, one commission member, Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, had sought to read transcripts of three days of closed hearings that had been held last fall by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees—hearings that Roemer, as a member of the House panel, had actually participated in.
   But when Roemer went down to a carefully guarded room on Capitol Hill to read the classified transcripts—he says to refresh his memory—he was stunned to learn that he couldn’t have access to them. The reason, relayed by a congressional staffer, was that Zelikow had acceded to a request by an administration official to permit lawyers to first review them to determine if the transcripts contained testimony about “privileged” material.
   Roemer called the deal “outrageous” and 9-11 family members victims bombarded the panel with angry calls. But late Tuesday, White House lawyers relented, thereby averting an embarrassing public escalation of the dispute—and inevitable charges of a White House cover-up—that could well have marred last Thursday’s highly publicized ceremony aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in which Bush declared the military action in Iraq “one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on.”
   But that by no means settled the matter, sources say. Publicly, the White House has pledged cooperation with the panel and two months ago chief of staff Andrew Card even distributed a memo to agency chiefs instructing them to work with the panel and provide them access to documents. But privately, talks have been far more problematic. Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who Bush named to chair the panel, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that in private talks with White House chief council Alberto Gonzales, the president’s chief lawyer, has already told him that he “may seek to invoke executive privilege” over some documents sought by the commission.
   Executive privilege is a doctrine traditionally invoked by all White Houses to keep confidential briefings or advice given to the president. But the precise boundaries of the doctrine are hardly settled. And it is far from clear how a White House attempt to withhold material from a congressionally authorized national commission on 9-11 will play out.
   Gonzales and the rest of the White House legal staff are known to feel particularly passionate about the sanctity of staff advice given to the president—a view that reflects Bush’s and Vice President Dick Cheney’s adamant opinion that internal executive-branch decision-making should be conducted without fear of congressional or media scrutiny. “Those are like the crown jewels—we’ll never give those up,” one White House lawyer predicted to NEWSWEEK recently when asked about presidential briefing papers that were likely to be sought by the commission.
   But some commission members say it might be politically difficult for the White House to sustain that position—especially given the panel’s broad legal mandate to unearth all pertinent facts relating to the events of 9-11. The invocation of executive privilege could fuel suspicions that the White House is stonewalling the panel in order to cover up politically embarrassing mistakes. “I think they have got to be worried about this,” says one panel member. “This is a bipartisan commission, and we’ve got the family members.”
   Among the most sensitive documents the commission is known to be interested in reviewing are internal National Security Council minutes from the spring and summer of 2001 when the CIA and other intelligence agencies were warning that an attack by Al Qaeda could well be imminent. The panel is also expected to seek interviews with key principals—such as national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her chief deputy, Stephen J. Hadley—to question them both about advice they gave the president and about what actions they took to deal with the rising concerns of intelligence-community officials about the Qaeda threat.
   An equally dicey subject, sources say, is the commission’s expected request to review debriefings of key Al Qaeda suspects who have been arrested—such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—who played critical roles in the 9-11 plot. The intelligence community has treated those debriefs as among the most highly classified material in the government, and the Justice Department is stoutly resisting a ruling by the federal judge overseeing the Zacarias Moussoui case to make bin al-Shibh available to the defense.
   But commission members argue that they can’t possibly do their job to write an authoritative history of 9-11 if they can’t discover what the federal government has learned from Al Qaeda operatives who know the most about how the plot was put together.

TERRORISTS? WHAT TERRORISTS? After his trip to Damascus last weekend, Secretary of State Colin Powell proclaimed new progress in the war on terror. The Syrian government, he announced, had agreed to shut down offices of Hamas and two other militant anti-Israel groups that the U.S. government views as violent terrorist organizations. It is still far from clear how much the Syrians will actually make good on their promises to Powell. But if they do, Syria may turn out to be more helpful than some of the United States’ supposed European allies in the war on terror. Despite renewed pressure from the Bush administration, the European Union is refusing to crack down on some of the same organizations on the grounds that they aren’t terrorists—despite their role in staging suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. The issue came to a head late last year, NEWSWEEK has learned, when Jimmy Gurule—then a top U.S. Treasury official involved in cracking down on terrorist financing—asked his counterparts at the European Union to freeze the assets of six organizations on Washington’s terrorist list. According to a copy of the list obtained by NEWSWEEK, the targeted groups included Hamas, two Hamas-related businesses (the Al-Azsa Religious Bank and Beit al-mal Holdings) and Hizbullah, as well as two others outside the Middle East, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka and the Communist Party of the Philippines. But in the case of Hamas and Hizbullah, the European Union refused. The purported reason: both groups run large-scale social services and medical operations in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Europeans say that they have no problem going after the terrorist arms of both outfits—but not the entire group, a distinction that Washington rejects as meaningless. At the moment, sources tell NEWSWEEK, the issue is at a stalemate—one more sign that when it comes to the war on terror, the perspective in Washington can often be sharply different than the view in other capitals, even those of our traditional allies.

xmetalhead

2003-05-09 15:16 | User Profile

Originally posted by Zoroaster@May 9 2003, 08:29 The invocation of executive privilege could fuel suspicions that the White House is stonewalling the panel in order to cover up politically embarrassing mistakes**. “I think they have got to be worried about this,” says one panel member. “This is a bipartisan commission, and we’ve got the family members.” **

"Political" mistakes? More like criminal acts. Yes, Zoro, something is definitely rotten in DC, I'd say. This administration is downright frightening and insane.

I'm a believer. I believe 9/11 was orchestrated and carried out to precision by the same criminals who perpetrated the war in Iraq. It's getting glaringly obvious that 9/11 was a ghastly hoax. I can't figure or give someone precise details, although there's many flaws in the official story. Yea, some Arab cavedweller madman/Stand down defense/failed Cessna hacks flying acrobatic jets/gov't was clueless to attacks but knew every hijacker w/pics on 9/12, etc, etc...

I dunno, I just feel it.....especially when looked at in reference to what's happened since that dreadful day. Unfortunately, most Americans buy the official line---- hook & s(t)inker.

kathaksung

2003-05-10 22:35 | User Profile

A news in July 2001 may reveal that FBI knew the coming hijaking.

Quote, "WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001 Attorney General Ashcroft, with President Bush (AP) "There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines." FBI spokesman (CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart."

"Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond. "

"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term. "

Be noticed the news was on July, 2001, two months before 911. And Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, routinely flew commercial. She didn't enjoy the special benefit of security. Can you explain why?

When FBI is accused of failure to warn the nation of 911 attack, this news revealed they did do something to deal with coming threaten already. Though only to their boss.

[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/...ain303601.shtml[/url]

Question and answer

"Maybe the threat was personal, not terror related."

Someone said this might be a personal threaten. But we know a personal threaten to celebrity is used to be assassination, such like President Kennedy's, Martin Luther King's. And a private plane is more vulnerable for a personal threaten, such like Jr. Kennedy, (died in 1999) whose political potential is a nightmare to those who assassinated his father and uncle. Carnaham, former governor of Missori, in campaign for Senator against Mr. Ashcroft,(in 2000) and a Disneyland executive, in campaign for CEO of Disney,(in 1993) were all died in accidents of private plane. Commercial flight's hijacking? In world, we know mostly done by Mid east terrorist. In US domestic flights? So far I know there was none until 911. So it goes back to the topic, how did FBI knew there would be an 'personal threaten' on commercial flights which hadn't happened before?

kathaksung

2003-05-22 21:16 | User Profile

1. CBS might be punished for that news

CBS published the news revealing Ashcroft travelling by charted flight in private tour. It was two months before 911 attack. FBI said it was for 'threaten assessment'. CBS might been punished for that news because it accidently revealed FBI knew hijaking would happen.

On December 2001, I had my opinion in message "My view of anthrax attack". Which talked about the first victim Bob Stevens is likely a revenge target of US celebrities more than a target of terrorist. Now it looks like CBS is the same. Though originally CBS was only pointing at corruption, FBI knew what it could really mean as it now does. CBS was a victim of anthrax attack. CBS Anchor Dan Rather's assistant tested positive of skin form of anthrax. Small trace was found in Rather's office.

Re:My view of anthrax attack

On Sept. 18, taking advantage of 911 WTC bombing, perpetrator mailed letters to NBC news. The anthrax inside was brown granular which might mean perpetrator intending at first not to kill but to intimidate. Perhaps disappointed with little reaction, they did it again(on Oct. 8), this time with a military grade anthrax. The letter to Senator Daschle and Leahy contained fine, white powder which mixed with a material designed to kill. And a man, Bob Stevens, died of anthrax on Oct. 5. His death caused fear of bio-chem attack nation wide. Anthrax crisis reached its peak on about Oct. 20, then faded away. During the period, it created a situation of bio-attack horror, put a pressure on legislation to pass through "patriot Act" to let Justice Department having more police power, push media and public to support government's war policy and also gave an excuse for government to extend war to Iraq. (The "Patriot Act" was proposed on Sept. 24 and passed in legislature on Oct.24. US started war in Afghan on Oct. 7)

Rosenberg, a biologist, has testified on biological weapons before Congress, has recently published a paper contending that a government insider; or someone in contact with an insider, is behind the lethal attacks." (Excerpt from: San Jose Mercury News, page 9A,Dec. 2,2001. Topic:'Inside job probed in anthrax attack') One official (law enforcement agency) called Rosenberg theory " the most likely hypothesis".

I believe the anthrax attack was done by Federal law enforcement agency. They have motives and resources. They are the one to be benefitted by the attack. They expanded their power by creating public's fear. They intimidated the media and legislation which are the check and balance to their power. They have the authority to access the secret lab under the name of 'security'. (like the case of Wen Ho Lee.)

And 1. The first victim is an editor of tabloid, a dislike of powerful US celebrities. His wife was the manager of apartments which had been rented to some 911 terrorists. He was possibly under FBI's surveillance. (consider thousand of aliens who even had no relationship to terrorist were detained by FBI)

1. Government released information that Atta visited crop duster aircraft. Hinted Al-quada relating to bio warfare. Matching perpetrators' intention to owe it to 911 terrorists.

2. Government released conflict information. Such like at first they said the material mixed in anthrax was bentonite, purposely to target at Iraq. Then admitted the material was silica, not used by Iraq, but US. It may proved that the perpetrators are not expert, only know little about the anthrax they were using and gave a wrong information when they making use of it.

3. At the same time, government released information that Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat. It matched the theory of bentonite, made Iraq a big suspect.

Most of these information can be only released by intelligence.

1. . Though government said first that there were 30 to 40 places had access to the anthrax and much more people could produce it by cheap equipment, it's only an excuse that they are unwill to find real criminal. The anthrax in Senator's letter is military grade. A fruit of years' research and experiment. And even in US there maybe only one secret lab carrying it. And access to it must be very strict.

2. US rejected a UN resolution condemning the anthrax attack. For what reason they did so if it's done by OBL, Al-quada, or domestic perpetrators? Unless it's done by they themselves.

3. My personal experience told it was a practice of Federal law enforcement agency. From their swift response to my comments. And I think they originally only planned one death(Bob Stevens) to raise the public attention and fear. The later four deaths were cover up to the comment " Least casualties to raise public's scare".

This elected government administration tries to hide something from people. They started a war but failed to give evidence, said that was for safety of informant. Then they want a military tribunal, what secret do they want to keep even they win a war? On Dec. 10, newspaper reported that Russian scientists had helped OBL to produce anthrax. Workshop was bombed away in war, but unknown quantity of anthrax might have been in abroad already. There was no detail, obviously let out by military or intelligence. An attemption to owe anthrax attack to terrorist when they failed to find a scapegoat of lone wolf? Perhaps that's why they limited media's report in Afghan war, and want a secret court. When US is the strongest power in the world, why there are so many things to be hided? If we have reason believe those who being sent to court are guilty, a military court only covers up corrupt government and criminal activities of it's official.

kathaksung

2003-06-02 22:19 | User Profile

1. Atta was under surveillance earlier

Public know little of other 18 terrorists but Atta. He was the most familier one for people among 19 terrorists.Such like his background; his student life in Hamburg, German; "his allergy hands"; "his visiting crop dust plane"; "his visit to Czech"; and his passport was even found two blocks away from WTC after 911 attack....Newspaper called him terrorist leader as if they had taken part in the meeting. But how could they know he was the leader, not the others?

Intelligence always benefited from terrorist attack.(more police power and increased budget) In anthrax attack, they released an information that 911 terrorist leader Atta had made contact to Iraq diplomat. They discussed a plot of bombing US broadcast station. I think the release of information was on purpose that Iraq had connection to terrorist so there was excuse to extend war to Iraq. But this also meant terrorist leader Atta's talking was eavesdropped. And he was under surveillance of intelligence at least as early as this spring. Do you believe that intelligence knew nothing of 911 bombing in advance?

kathaksung

2003-06-13 22:22 | User Profile

1. I posted in January that Atta was under surveillance ealier. In April, a news said, " Czech Officials Say Story That Sept. 11 Hijacker Atta Met with Iraqi Agent in Prague May Be Wrong;"

When they need excuse to extend war on Iraq, they let out the news that Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat. Once it becomes an evidence that government knew terror attack in advance, they say it maybe wrong. Both news were let out by intelligence. Its strategy office made conflict information. Which one do you believe?

On 6/6, a news proves what I said is true, Atta did under surveillance

quote, "NSA didn't share key pre-Sept. 11 information, sources say By JONATHAN S. LANDAY Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A secretive U.S. eavesdropping agency monitored telephone conversations before Sept. 11 between the suspected commander of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the alleged chief hijacker, but did not share the information with other intelligence agencies, U.S. officials said Thursday.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the conversations between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta were intercepted by the National Security Agency, or NSA, an intelligence agency that monitors and decodes foreign communications.

The NSA failed to share ...."

[url=http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/3416632.htm]http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/3416632.htm[/url]

Rumblestrip

2003-06-16 21:15 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 14 2003, 17:41 * ** Did you notice how controlled the twin towers collapsed? In a skyscraper-city like N.Y. a crashing building would be like tipping off a row of dominos, if it doesn't crash through a controlled explosion. Also the flying debree would cause much damage. If you look at the remains of the WTC towers, you will see that structures of the outer wall still stood and the rest was mostly blown to DUST. Now there is a company that has developed a method to destroy concrete effectevliy (so it can be recyled more easy) that destroys the concrete so that the iron parts can be retained. the question comes up:

1) How can a 747 which crashes into the upper floors create such a controlled explosion? 2) Why didn't the buildings fall to the right or left and take down other buildings.

Its also interesting that they find the passport of the "terrorists" in debree near the site allthough the plane burst in a giant fireball. **

And furthermore, if you post any of those questions to the countless zionist-owned neocons, you are blasted as a terrorist sympathizer.

Most of the news since 9/11/2001 does seem rather, oh let's call it "convenient" doesn't it? Take a good look at how media-friendly the war on Iraq was. The sheeple are too entertained by the puppet show to even notice the guys up high pulling the strings.

kathaksung

2003-06-23 04:43 | User Profile

Pentagon knew in advance

In bottom part of a Newsweek article, it said, "Three weeks ago there was another warning that a terrorist strike might be imminent. But there was no mention of where. On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Bush: ‘We’re At War’

By Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball NEWSWEEK

Avalanche

2003-06-23 11:58 | User Profile

[url=http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/6136245.htm]http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/6136245.htm[/url] Posted on Sun, Jun. 22, 2003

Twin Cities Press False war beliefs 'striking' BY FRANK DAVIES Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll. And 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.

Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001.

But such weapons have not been found in Iraq, and were never used. Most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were Iraqis.

How could so many people be so wrong about life-and-death information that has dominated news coverage for almost two years?

These results startled the pollsters who conducted and analyzed the surveys.

"It's a striking finding," said Steve Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which asked the weapons questions during a May 14-18 poll of 1,265 respondents.

He added, "Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention, this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."

That is, having their beliefs conflict with the facts.

Kull said the poll's data showed that the mistaken belief that weapons of mass destruction had been found "is substantially greater among those who favored the war."

Pollsters and political analysts see several reasons for the gaps between facts and beliefs: the public's short attention span on foreign news, fragmentary or conflicting media reports that lacked depth or skepticism and Bush administration efforts to sell a war by oversimplifying the threat.

"Most people get little whiffs and fragments of news, not in any organized way," said Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, a centrist-liberal think tank. "And there have been a lot of conflicting reports on the weapons."

Before the war, the U.S. media often reported as a fact the assertions by the Bush administration that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of illegal weapons. During and after the war, reports of weapons discoveries were often trumpeted on front pages, while follow-up stories debunking the "smoking gun" reports received less attention.

"There were so many reports and claims before the war, it was easy to be confused," said Larry Hugick, chairmxan of Princeton Survey Research Associates. "But people expected the worst from Saddam Hussein and made connections based on the administration's policy."

Bush has described the preemptive attack on Iraq as "one victory in the war on terror that began Sept. 11." Bush officials also claim that Iraq sheltered and helped al-Qaida operatives.

"The public is susceptible to manipulation, and if they hear officials saying there is a strong connection between Iraq and al-Qaida terrorists, then they think there must be a connection," Mann said.

"Tapping into the feelings and fears after Sept. 11 is a way to sell a policy," he added.

Some analysts say Bush has been following a long presidential history of framing a foreign crisis for maximum domestic benefit.

"I'm not going to defend the president, but a policy of preemptive attacks sure looks better after this country has been hit hard," said Sam Popkin, a polling expert at the University of California at San Diego.

Polls show strong support for Bush and the war, although 40 percent in the May survey found U.S. officials were "misleading" in some of their justifications for war. A majority, 55 percent, said they were not misleading.

Several analysts said the murky claims and intelligence data about lethal weapons and terrorist ties allow most people to see such news through the filter of their own political beliefs.

And GOP pollsters said any controversy over weapons wouldn't change public attitudes because ridding Iraq of an oppressive regime was reason enough for war for many Americans.

"People supported the war for national security reasons and that shifted to humanitarian reasons when they saw evidence of Saddam's atrocities," said Republican strategist Frank Luntz. "There's an assumption these weapons will be found because this guy was doing so many bad things."

Popkin said he was troubled by the lack of knowledge about the Sept. 11 hijackers, shown in the January survey conducted for Knight Ridder newspapers.

Only 17 percent correctly said that none of the hijackers were Iraqi.

"That really bothers me because it shows a lack of understanding about other countries — that maybe many Americans don't know one Arab from another," Popkin said. "Maybe because Saudis are seen as rich and friendly, people have a hard time dealing with them as hijackers."

Hugick said his analysis shows those who are misinformed are not necessarily those who have less education.

"I think a lot of people are just confused about the threats out there," he said.

kathaksung

2003-07-06 01:00 | User Profile

1. A war without evidence given

Mystery informant and evidence

If you still remember when Bush started war in Afghan, they didn't show people the evidence that OBL was behind 911. They said they had evidence, but couldn't make it public for the sake of safety of informant. Now, after eight months, where was that informant and evidence? Was he still with OBL? If so, why couldn't we capture OBL? There is another explanation, they did have evidence that OBL would attack. So there was such "threat assessment" for charted plane. And they need it like 'Perl Harbour' in WW2. They couldn't show it to people otherwise it also revealing they knew attack in advance. Perhaps that's why they want a military court. Perhaps that's why there is little news activity from Afghan. Most we got are from Army's saying. They want to bury the truth forever.

W.R.I.T.O.S

2003-07-06 03:49 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 14 2003, 17:41 * ** Did you notice how controlled the twin towers collapsed? In a skyscraper-city like N.Y. a crashing building would be like tipping off a row of dominos, if it doesn't crash through a controlled explosion. Also the flying debree would cause much damage. If you look at the remains of the WTC towers, you will see that structures of the outer wall still stood and the rest was mostly blown to DUST. Now there is a company that has developed a method to destroy concrete effectevliy (so it can be recyled more easy) that destroys the concrete so that the iron parts can be retained. the question comes up:

1) How can a 747 which crashes into the upper floors create such a controlled explosion? 2) Why didn't the buildings fall to the right or left and take down other buildings.

Its also interesting that they find the passport of the "terrorists" in debree near the site allthough the plane burst in a giant fireball.

If one looks at 9/11 from todays perspective, it was the best thing that the Neo-Cons could have hoped for. The americans now have a free pass to do what they want all over the world. Fight against "terror" not only alowes them to lead an "eternal War" but also helps crack down on domestic dissent. The public has been scared and whipped into a frenzy and ZOG can tear up the constitutional rights. **

Buildings don't fall over over sideways. Didn't you see the video? The buildings collapsed a considerable time after they were hit as a result of the intitial structural damage and the subsequent fire damage. Are you suggesting that the toweres were wired with explosives? How many people would have had to be complicit in that conspiracy and how the hell would it have been kept quiet? This kind of conspiracy bullshit should be saved for another forum. It makes white nationalists look like idiots.

il ragno

2003-07-06 07:24 | User Profile

**This kind of conspiracy bullshit should be saved for another forum. It makes white nationalists look like idiots. **

I'm old enough to remember people saying the same thing when you expressed doubt at the Warren Commission findings?

"What? A govt conspiracy - to kill the American President? Impossible! How many people would have had to be complicit in that conspiracy and how the hell would it have been kept quiet? "

Übeltäter

2003-07-06 07:59 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 23 2003, 08:48 * ** Thats exactly how it works! And it's so easy with a dumbed down public like in America. Most of all, the mass of the Lemmings don't care. They would bomb Bulgaria or Switzerland if their Goverment would tell them so. **

Saddam put money in Swiss banks!!

:o

:gun:

BOMBS AWAY!!

kathaksung

2003-07-16 21:47 | User Profile

1. CIA knew in advance

CIA Director Warned Congress About 9/11 Attacks

It's certainly one of the most disturbing and important in dications that the government knew the attacks of September 11, 2001, were coming. On that morning, National Public Radio http://www.npr.org (NPR) was presenting live coverage of the attacks on its show Morning Edition. Host Bob Edwards went to a reporter in the field-David Welna, NPR's Congressional correspondent-who was in the Capitol building as it was being evacuated. Here is the crucial portion of Welna's report:

I spoke with Congressman Ike Skelton-a Democrat from Missouri and a member of the Armed Services Committee-who said that just recently the Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack-an imminent attack-on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected.

[url=http://www.thememoryhole.org/tenet-911.htm]http://www.thememoryhole.org/tenet-911.htm[/url]

kathaksung

2003-08-06 23:10 | User Profile

1. Bush family knew in advance.

Quote, "09-21-01

UPDATE, September 21, 2001 - On Friday, September 7, Florida Governor "Jeb" Bush signed Executive Order No. 01-261 which states, in part:

"I hereby delegate to The Adjutant General of the State of Florida all necessary authority, within approved budgetary appropriations or grants, to order members of the Florida National Guard into active service, as defined by Section 250.27, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of training to support law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters and to provide training support to law-enforcement personnel and community-based organizations relating to counter drug operations. This Executive Order shall remain in full force and effect until the earlier of its revocation or June 30, 2003."

This Florida EO places the Florida National Guard [which is not a lawful militia], a unit of the Federal U.S. Army, in control of all Florida law enforcement [State FDLE, County Sheriffs, and local PD's] and the Florida Emergency Management Agency [Florida's FEMA under federal FEMA control]. This took place four days before the World Trade Center disaster.

On the morning of Tuesday, September 11, Pres. "G.W." Bush was in a Sarasota, Florida classroom reading a story about a pet goat when his Chief of Staff whispered in his ear about the WTC "terrorism". Rather than attend to this national disaster, "G.W." continues to read the goat story to these second grade children and then, 30 minutes later, makes a brief statement to the press. More about this odd behavior can be read at The Obscure Goat Story. (http://209.123.142.199/lawgiver/911.asp)

Governor "Jeb" then signed Florida Executive Order No. 01-262 immediately after the second WTC tower fell. Florida was the first STATE to declare a "State of Emergency" and did so before New York State or the Federal Washington City leaders did, yet there were no "terroristic" incidents that had taken place. Florida EO 01-262 states, in part:

"I hereby declare that a state of emergency exists in the State of Florida... The authority to suspend the effect of any statute or rule governing the conduct of state business, and the further authority to suspend the effect of any order or rule of any governmental entity... The authority to seize and utilize any and all real or personal property as needed to meet this emergency... The authority to order the evacuation of any or all persons from any location in the State of Florida, and the authority to regulate the movement of any or all persons to or from any location in the State; The authority to regulate the return of the evacuees to their home communities... I hereby order the Adjutant General to activate the Florida National Guard for the duration of this emergency."

There is no declared expiration of this Florida Executive Order. In case you haven't figured it out yet, Florida is now under martial law and will remain so until this EO is revoked. We tried to warn the people of Florida about this in 1998 when our State Constitution was changed in order to allow this to take place [see below].

If you plan on vacationing in Florida State, remember that you have entered a Martial Law State under the control of the Washington City "brothers" and federal troops. This looks and smells far too much like 1865.

[url=http://209.123.142.199/lawgiver/flaconst.asp]http://209.123.142.199/lawgiver/flaconst.asp[/url]

Avalanche

2003-08-07 03:40 | User Profile

**W.R.I.T.O.S:  Buildings don't fall over over sideways. Didn't you see the video? The buildings collapsed a considerable time after they were hit as a result of the intitial structural damage and the subsequent fire damage. Are you suggesting that the toweres were wired with explosives? How many people would have had to be complicit in that conspiracy and how the hell would it have been kept quiet? This kind of conspiracy bullshit should be saved for another forum. It makes white nationalists look like idiots. ** Not at all! When the WTC was "rebuilt" after the 1993 bombings, do you think the safety team would have balked when told that it was NECESSARY to install controlled demo explosives because "MY GOD WHAT WOULD HAPPEN!!! if the towers (or any NYC skyscraper) fell over?!" They would conclude that it WAS necessary and appropriate "to prevent a far far worse disaster" that explosives were put into place in the WTC. And they wouldn't have needed a huge team, just several coordinated and dedicated guys on the reconstruction teams! The shaped charges would have been delivered and hauled up to the appropriate floors with the regularly ordered construction gear, and the 'team' could have placed them and walled them in as part of standard repairs!

(Besides, if they used a team of good old mossad agents, they wouldn't have to train them or EVER worry about them having pangs of conscience and speaking out! The insertion could have been EASILY accomplished, and required very little "coverup" or complicity!) :( :angry:

Sorry WRITOS, you're being naive (or rather, a trusting and misled white man)!

kathaksung

2003-08-21 01:54 | User Profile

FBI knew OKC bombing in advance

A lot of sources said there were more accomplices involved in OKC bombing. And after Waco event, FBI had penetrated militia organizations. Quote, "Some time prior to the bombing, the DEA planned a raid on Elohim City, from which McVeigh is alleged to have worked out his plans. but the FBI warned the DEA not to make their raid, because the FBI had "an informant in place", That informant seems to have been Strassmeir himself, who was never even sought for questioning… until months later, shortly after he had left the country. " (http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/06/arwh080601.htm)

The motive of OKC bombing by McVeigh is to revenge government's injustice in Waco. His target was FBI and BATF in Murrah Federal Building. Yet on that day, "Many of the ATF agents and other officials who worked in the building were given either permission or explicit warnings to be out of the building that morning. Some, including a Federal Judge, have never recanted on these claims. Yet the government calls them all liars." . They knew the bombing in advance. Other federal employees became scapegoat.

The content of "Patriot Act" which G.A. Ashcroft proposed after 911 attack had been proposed by FBI director Freeh after OKC bombing. Freeh failed to pass his proposal but Ashcroft succeeded. Perhaps with the help of anthrax attack. From two similar terrorist events, we can see the culture of FBI. They value their lives very much, they absented in office on OKC bombing day, they gave a 'threat assessment' for their boss before 911 attack. (fact) They tried to get more police power from the panic of terror attack (motive) and neglected public lives' loss. As a matter of fact, only the huge loss made people give away their civil right to FBI.

kathaksung

2003-08-31 21:18 | User Profile

Padilla and OKC bombing

On June 10, Ashcroft announced arrest of Padilla for dirty bomb plot. Then there was an interesting discovery on Padilla in internet. People found he is identical to John Doe, alleged accomplice of McVeigh in OKC bombing. . A coincidence?

[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/697881/posts]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/697881/posts[/url]

From another angle:

In my opinion, FBI had their informant everywhere. They penetrated militia organization and Arabs too. I think they knew OKC bombing and 911 attack in advance but didn't say it. Because they could benefit from it.

It's no surprise if Padilla could be an informant recruited when he was in jail. (in 91) To work for an Pakistanian food owner two years was the first step to penetrate into Arab world.(in 92, 93) Just think he was with Zubaydah then Zubaydah was arrested in Pakistan. Think government announced much earlier that Al-Quada would use dirty bomb. Also think why government insisted McVeigh acting alone in OKC bombing while a lot of source said there were more accomplice and informant.

Padilla's arrest is unusual. There is no evidence, said only resemble to what Zubaydah's description whom was not considered as cooperating witness. But it made Ashcroft to announce his arrest in Moscow. And also made Bush sign a directive naming him as enemy combatant and put him into military custody until "war against terror" is over.

M1488D

2003-09-01 00:18 | User Profile

Let's not forget the false airliner attack on the Pentagon. Check out these pics, very interesting how controlled the destruction was...[img]http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/second-anneau.jpg[/img] Pic #1. Damage only confined to outside ring. That plane must have come in really low. So lo it must have hit the ground before hitting the building. If it hit a the top there is no way it could have been stopped from going into the second ring. [img]http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/pelouse.jpg[/img] Pic #2. Wow absolutlely no debris from the plane's impact with the ground or even skid marks on the lawn. Amazing flying, I'll say.[img]http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg[/img] Pic #3. Super imposed plane baffels the mind as to how the damage was so confined. [img]http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/facade-intacte-1.jpg[/img] Pic #4. Here we see the Pentagon immediately following the impact of the plane. It was a plane right? Not a bomb, or some other less destructive, easily controlled device?

Pic #1. [url=http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.html]http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/...-8006R-002.html[/url] Pic #2. [url=http://www.army.mil/attack4.htm]http://www.army.mil/attack4.htm[/url] Pic #3. [url=http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-001.html]http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/...-8006R-001.html[/url] Pic #4. Pic works on site below. Link for pic does not. Sorry.

I have merely condensed the information found here. [url=http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm]http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen.../erreurs_en.htm[/url]

Spiderman

2003-09-01 05:40 | User Profile

I watched 9/11 on T.V.

Reminded me of Ruby shooting Oswald... Tacky... like our culchure today. However, context, context, context... it was always thus at the levels of govt. and, sadly among the people... top down... kings are tacky... the people are tacky... today's invisible morons, falling on the joy stick of power, are tacky... I'm tacky... tacky, tacky, tacky...

The political problem for the U.S. today after the Cold One... (those were the days), no not a cold one... cheers, the Cold War... is the context changed... but the old political system for funding (i.e. the old political economy) has not changed.

For funding things like, just for example, the Pentagon. Half that budget, each year, isn't even accounted for by Congress... (where did, does it go?) this was a Bill Moyer's special on public television a few weeks ago... I believe it... SCOUNDRELS have always looted nations at the level of govt. Seriously, our problem today is that they just haven't dreamed up something new yet to at least fit the reality of the times.

However the looting is local as well... not merely a centralized anachronistic system... so in terms of the legit, and the legit pork... and the other half that's unaccounted for... it (ie. the anachronism or old politcal economy or Way or Sacred Cow) still supports local economies as well... All politics is also local... THUS my admission... I'M TACKY... too... sorry...

So how long can the nation be hollowed out financially, by the old politcal economy? Tacky... tacky.. tacky...

kathaksung

2003-09-11 20:35 | User Profile

O.Bin Laden's communication was intercepted for as long as 6 months before 911.

Quote, "The NSA cracked bin Laden's encryption code by February 2001

Even before April, the Bush administration HAD TO KNOW something was up and probably had info that was even more specific than the warnings given above. According to UPI correspondent Richard Sale, by February 2001, the National Security Agency had broken Osama bin Laden's communications encryption system. We know that the encryption was broken because the Bush administration reported AFTER 9/11 that it had intercepted encrypted calls bin Laden made to his mother two days before the attack, saying "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while." If this message was intercepted before the attack, what others were intercepted as well that the Bush administration did NOT reveal? Most likely six-months'-worth of terrorist planning."

[url=http://scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm]http://scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm[/url]

kathaksung

2003-09-21 21:47 | User Profile

Polygraph law makers (9/25)

In early June, a news said the conversations between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta were intercepted by NSA. It said in two separate conversations on Sept. 10, 2001 contained the pharases "Tomorrow is zero hour" and "The match is about to begin.". Since these two pharases are vague one and consider NSA intercepts 2 million conversations in each hour, the pick up of these two phrases was not a coincidence. It proves that Atta was under surveillance by government earlier before 911.

Then FBI said it was a secret intelligent information which shouldn't be let out public. They are investigating who has leaked it. They target on law makers and even request a polygraph.

But who will investigate the secret information leaking committed by intelligence itself?

When the news said Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat in Czech and talked about bombing plot, it leaked that Atta and Iraq diplomate were under surveillance and it leaked Czech intelligence was cooperated with USA.

There is another similar news release. By February 2001, NSA had broken the bin Laden's communications encryption system. What we know from the information government released is that OBL talked to his mother two days before 911 attack, "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while." It let people know that Bin laden's communication was under surveillance as long as 6 months before 911. And his communication code was broken.

Nobody could release such information but intelligence. Though the original purpose of news about Atta and Iraq diplomate was to target on Iraq to frame it linking with 911 terrorist, so administration could have excuse to start a war on Iraq. And the news of Bin Laden's intercepted conversation was used to find a legal base for Bush to start war in Afghan. These information leaking are as important as the Atta's "Tomorrow is zero huor" one. Why FBI had a blind eye on these secret leakings? Because they were released by intelligence?

The secret information leaking FBI accused took place in early June, at a time when lawmakers and 911 victims were going to investigate failure of intelligence of 911 attack with an independent commision. It could be a trap intelligence set. They use this method to retaliate, or extort law makers to avoid investigation on their own flaw or crime. Or to reach a compromise.

If we don't know these "secrecy", we will believe what government said that they had known nothing before attack. "Secret" is only a stonewall they used to cover up thier corruption.

il ragno

2003-09-24 20:39 | User Profile

If Bush wants to convince me his administration's hands, and Izzy's, were clean on 9-11, just answer the ONE question they all keep ducking...

WHERE THE #$!@ WERE THE F-15s????

And don't try to shine me on by telling me about all the women & minorities in today's armed forces. (Though no one would ever say that in public, it's still a smokescreen.)

kathaksung

2003-09-30 23:48 | User Profile

9/11 Relatives Want Probe, White House Does Not

Is 9/11 an important event? Do America people have the right to demand an investigation on intelligence failure of it? Why it's so difficult to set up an independent commission for it? It seems a powerful group which was only interested in personal affairs such like Lewinsky scandal, but once it touches their own secret, they try to block any investigation even there was a big loss of lives.

Cheney: 'Investigators, Keep Out' by Michael Isikoff and Tamara Li pper NEWSWEEK Issue; 21 October, 2002 The vice president blocks an independent commission to investigate 9-11 NEWSWEEK -- Dick Cheney played a behind-the-scenes role last week in derailing an agreement to create an independent commission to investigate the 9-11 attacks. Last month the White House endorsed the formation of the panel. But on Thursday, hours after congressional negotiators hailed a final deal over the scope and powers of a 9-11 panel, Cheney called House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Porter Goss, sources told NEWSWEEK.

[url]http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.23A.911.families.htm[/url]

kathaksung

2003-10-10 22:06 | User Profile

FBI awards man who blocked MN investigation

Quote, " FBI performs a nasty little sequel to whistle-blower saga Doug GrowStar TribunePublished Dec. 22, 2002

The Star Tribune's Greg Gordon reported last week that at a quiet little ceremony earlier this month, Marion (Spike) Bowman was one of nine people in the bureau to receive an award for "exceptional performance." The award carries with it a cash bonus of 20 to 35 percent of the recipient's salary and a framed certificate signed by the president.

What does this have to do with Rowley? Bowman heads the FBI's National Security Law Unit. That's the unit that blocked Minneapolis agents from pursuing their suspicions about Moussaoui. There were no FBI honors for the Minneapolis office. There was a big honor for the lead antagonist of the Minneapolis office."

[url]http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3547688.html[/url]

kathaksung

2003-10-21 01:06 | User Profile

Beware another terror attack

I've alleged government insiders made the OKC bombing, anthrax attack, sniper case and allowed 911 attack to happen to grip more police power and push for war in Mid-east. Some people argued how could government kill their own people. Compare the recent news and the revelation of the book. Beware another terror attack from our own government. (though always disguised as "enemy combatant" and "terrorist")

News: Within the past three weeks, US intelligence gathered what officials at Scott Air Force Base described as credible evidence of a planned bombing of a passenger airliner contracted to fly troops and freight for the military. (1/13/03, San Jose Mercury News)

Book: They called for hijacking jet airliners, attacking US military bases, blowing up US ships and wounding civilians in Miami, Florida and Washington, DC using paramilitary sniper teams . (northwoods story)

Operation Northwoods Our U.S. Government Planned To Attack "We The People" Former ABC News investigative reporter James Bamford . Broke the Northwoods Story in His Book, Body of Secrets . It is based mostly on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act or found in government archives.

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," said one document reportedly prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," the document says. "Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation." The Northwoods Document spells out the US Government's plan to frame innocent people for the shootings and bombings that the US Government was preparing to commit. Northwoods Document states that after the Government carried out shootings and bombings in Washington DC that "the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."

[url]http://www.retakingamerica.com/northwoods_page_1.html[/url]

USA Today - Bush wrong to use pretext as excuse to invade Iraq [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-08-29-usat-opin-bamford_x.htm[/url] "The answer was Operation Northwoods "

ABC News - Friendly Fire Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html"America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties "