more 9/11 news

I'm the skeptic here Tut, it's YOUR job to verify and report the information, to prove to US the "brainwashed bozos" as you call us, that you are right.

If you can't do that, them I'm just sorry, I won't buy into your gullability.

Robbie

Your sense of timing is sometimes comic, and I wonder whether it ever gets you into any difficulty.

Not in this case, though, because you have all the details you need from Tut. I think you missed them by a few seconds in your desire to deny anything that is corrupt, complicit, incompetent or downright evil in the Bush administration and its agencies.

Odd...I just traced the source of mr. Olmsted's "incriminating autopsy report" that claimed that there were no arabs on Flight 77.

And wouldn't you know...the Autopsy list is from 1992!

Ok more oddities...the list is from 1992, the NAMES on the list is from Flight 77, and he said there are no arabs, and implies no muslims (due to last names) on the list, but after 3 name checks I found one Muslim so far.

Norma Khan.

Robbie

The document you seem to be referring to sounds silly.

Olmsted wrote his FOI request for the information on April 3, 2002.

The Department of Defense, in its June 20, 2003 letter, refers specifically to the Pentagon crash of Flight 77, on September 11, 2001, and provides a list of 58 names.

Where has 1992 entered into this? Are you sure it's a date? Or is it a typographical error? Please explain.

And finally, in the man's arguments he states he can not explain where the 3 extra people on board came from...

There were 64 dead! 58 listed on the autopsy. That is 6 that this guy is not accounting for...who were they? The pilot co-pilot? and 4 others? maybe one engineer? This autopsy list of his is just a list of names of victims released on CNN on a paper dated 1992...what's with this guy?

Yes his paper is upside down look at the bottom. It's marked 1992.

Why would he make those marks? At all...?

December 9th, 1992 to be exact.

Robbie

You are obfuscating in the extreme.

Collect your thoughts, and present them rationally.

There cannot be an autopsy report dated 1992 provided to the man who initiated the FOI request.

Norma Khan is not an arabic name, necessarily.

I am concerned for what you are doing.

Perhaps you could link to the document you are referencing, and someone else might provide a second opinion.



PS. Your explanations really do look like the sort of tactics generally employed by the Bush administration. I think you are not deliberately trying to be confusing, but it does not affect the line of questioning that one with a disciplined mind will pursue. Some people are looking for clear answers instead, and have a legitimate reason for their search.

Sorry, my bad eyes counted wrong but I've finally explained the odd numbers I was getting.

There are 59 on his list.

64 dead, the 5 terrorists are not on THIS morgue list.

That is all we are given, the rest is left to the word of this guy...

www.usigs.org...

There is a completel list, the 59 from his "FOIA" list, and the 5 terrorists...now I shall continue to delve into info about the extra 5.

See, Tut was too damn lazy to do his own verification.

Let's review what we have so far:

A blank paper upside down with no indication it is from the FOIA, which since he has pfd he should have been able to provide easily.

It is upside-down because the header states 12-09-1992 on it, the time, and his name, all upside-down to the reader.

The names on it are the 59 of the passengers and crew.

He states that there were 3 "extras" he can't explain but really there are 5 extras the terrorists, that he never mentions.

He claims there are no arabic names on the morgue report, well of course not, 5 names are missing.

This is getting thinner, and thinner, by the minute.

Robbie

If you question whether the PDF associated with the document that was supplied by the Department Of Defence is a genuine facsimle of what the D.O.D. actually sent, then the fact remains that you don't believe you have seen the right evidence.

However, you know there was an FOI request, you know there was a response, and you know there are significant discrepancies.

The same kind of discrepancies that allowed authorities to incorrectly name at least seven of the hijackers, who came forward in dismay, and who showed that they were victims of identity theft.

The plot should be thickening for you, not thinning.

Stop obfuscating. Bush is complicit in all this, and in the WMD lies.

Masked... have you looked at the fax used for "evidence"? The date, the only identifying mark, is indeed 1992... it does not hold up.

After nearly two years spent contemplating this topic, I remain confused as to why people want to believe specific conspiracy theories on the flimsiest of "evidence".

How many theories have we been through on this aspect of history? 10? 20? 30? Seems like at least 50 have been discussed here.

I can't find the fax / "facts". Somehow I cannot see a PDF of the document that supposedly accompanied the letter from D.O.D., that has a bizarre '1992' date noted on it. I don't know how the '1992' could have got there, or its significance.

My point is that if that document presented on the net somewhere is fake, but the FOI request and response are genuine, then the actual document must exist.

Tut went above and beyond the call of duty. I wonder how many phone calls the poor guy gets from rabid conspiracy theorists.

My opinion is there are so many things surrounding the circumstances on 9/11 that don't add up, that there should have been a full and detailed enquiry into them, and release of all information necessary to satisfy the overwhelming public interest in these issues and restore faith in the government's management of it.

There has not been, and there cannot be, because this whole debacle has been mismanaged, and used as the "Pearl Harbour" trigger for illegal wars.

There has been cover-up after cover-up.

I don't have a pet conspiracy theory on this. I would align better with the people who want factual answers to important questions.

I am against corruption, and the Bush administration is inherently corrupt.

ATS isn't.

I'll give it to you that things don't seem to add up, but that doesn't mean that they were all planned by the Bush Administration

It could just be we haven't found all the facts...I doubt any of us are sitting there writing flash cards of information, and then laying them out on a warehouse floor with lines drawn to connect all the information

It takes that kind of work to peice together the puzzle, not articles and hear-says heh...

But it would be nice if there were prior information about these terrorists, to at least show they were real.

Alas they were such nobodies like most of us, no record of them exists online of them before 9/11...only in other forms, thus tamperable.

I would just be glad if one of the deceased hijackers was awarded some medal or something like in year 2000 or 1999 or such just to prove yeah...he wasn't made up...

I think we all have read 1984 too much.

Orwell himself did say something along the lines of "Instead of people finding the true history they'll ignore all history they are told and make up their own"

If he didn't say something like that I'll say it because it's pretty true.

We as lay-historians can easily dismiss something as forged or not, and thus complicate things in debates as we throw around all the reasons why our facts must have been lies lol

There has been cover-up after cover-up.

I don't have a pet conspiracy theory on this. I would align better with the people who want factual answers to important questions.

I am against corruption, and the Bush administration is inherently corrupt.

ATS isn't.

I'm with Masked on this, I believe that there are way too many unusual coincidences & circumstances regarding 9/11 for it to have occurred the "official" way.
The American public deserves the truth.

Well what cover-ups? I haven't noticed any cover-ups...seems like all the information is there but the problem is a lot of informative places are not legitimate sources and their figures are wrong or their sources are wrong which leads you on strange goose chases...the official sites "government sites" anyways, are all strait forward and informative.

Will everyone be pleased if this conspiracy theory that our govt. blew up people in this manner is true just to get into the trouble we have now? Any terrorist act could have been a stepping point for govt. action i.e., Patriot Act.

Bush was after Sadaam from the get go. It feels like some want this to be reality.

Who is this guy any way?

Originally posted by RobertBurns
Well what cover-ups? I haven't noticed any cover-ups...seems like all the information is there but the problem is a lot of informative places are not legitimate sources and their figures are wrong or their sources are wrong which leads you on strange goose chases...the official sites "government sites" anyways, are all strait forward and informative.

i will prove you to be wrong.

please take the time to read all the links and respond accordingly.

.............................................................

1. First of all, George W Bush's behaviour on the day of the attacks

www.thememoryhole.org...

www.whitehouse.gov...

"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."


......................................................................................

2. Whistleblowers, corruption, terrorist links and basic negligance in the intelligence agencies
globalresearch.ca...

globalresearch.ca...

www.propagandamatrix.com...

www.judicialwatch.org...

propagandamatrix.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

propagandamatrix.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.propagandamatrix.com...


........................................................................

3. Warnings and perhaps awareness

propagandamatrix.com...

www.propagandamatrix.com...

www.propagandamatrix.com...

www.propagandamatrix.com...

...........................................................

4. cover up

www.examiner.com...

www.apfn.org...

emperors-clothes.com...

emperors-clothes.com...

...........................................................

5. Who is Bush? who is bin laden?

www.questionsquestions.net...

www.fromthewilderness.com...

www.inthesetimes.com...

www.judicialwatch.org...

............................................................

i haven't gone in to any of the events of the day, which are
very suspicious as well, like why jets were not scrambled,
how the alleged phone call from the plane was a fake, insider trading,
suicide bombers who lived to tell the tale (the tale being that they
were not involved in the attacks) or that various top officials
cancelled their flights prior to the attacks. i haven't gone into any
of the Mossad implications (spy ring). i haven't touched on the global hawk technology.

..........................................................

the official story is as dead as a dodo my friend.

Originally posted by Peace

Originally posted by RobertBurns
Well what cover-ups? I haven't noticed any cover-ups...

i will prove you to be wrong.

please take the time to read all the links and respond accordingly.

.............................................................


..........................................................

the official story is as dead as a dodo my friend.

=============================================
============================================

thank you Peace,

your leg work is greatly appreciated. there is much, much more than meets the eye. especilly in our press. I do not understand how republicans can declare our press as liberal fanatics, when the press always serves the republican purpose. other than the press is freak'in stupid and overly paid so they forget their purpose is to investigate
by the way, has anyone called Ohlmstead in New Orleans?
Which by the way is the seat of covert USA operations for CIA since we blew up their Detroit office in the 60's

Thanks Peace for venturing back to the topic and providing an extensive set of links.

It is important for some people like the poetic RobertBurns to maintain their sense of order in the world by denying the complicity and corruption of the Bush administration. But give him his due, he will read the material, and that is a first step, as eventually some things that have been outside his blinkers will enter his peripheral vision until finally he focuses on them.

I don't think the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

But they were certainly complicit.

9/11 is just one of a series of events that the Bush administration will be remembered for. But they won't be remembered as heroes. Nosiree.