It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 from a different perspective.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by dereks

ok sorry i posted to much before i completely finished my producing of information....but i will wade in call 2.3trillion a balancing error. OMG. 2,300,000,000,000.00dollars.....oops i made a little error in the account i am sure i can account for um....say 760,000,000.00 of it would please forgive me,,,,oh and by the way alot of the information just happen to be in a exact offices of where the pentagon got struck...but you know what gee.....we can write that bit off as that is only the tax payers money as the will give us they did with the bank bailout....cause we are honest,truth worthy,upstanding citizaen that only have the peoples interest at heart.

I am so happy many people are not that gullible on here....

edit on 083030p://f23Wednesday by plube because: speeeeling

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by plube
I am so happy many people are not that gullible on here

Truthers are very gullible as they do their "research" by only visiting those damn fool conspiracy sites, which is why they post so many lies here!

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:14 AM
reply to post by neformore

Originally posted by neformore
The third 9/11 angle is this... the people who were put in place to prevent, to protect, to analyse, to outhink, to defend... actually simply dropped the ball completely?

personally, i do not think this was the case. they knew. i was a low level enlisted member in the usaf when this happened, and i called it correctly right after the second tower got hit. we had been briefed on who Osama Bin Laden was during earlier deployments to the middle east (Al Jaber Air Base in Kuwait for me), and i was aware that he was in Afghanistan. right after the second tower got hit, i said it out loud and have more than 40 witnesses. i said we were going to war with Afghanistan ... becuase i had prior knowledge that that was where he was, and that he and his orginization was capable of such an attack .... or at least that was what my superiors wanted us to believe.

But... the cold war ended in 1990. The fighters and interceptors were stood down. The Russians stopped probing with their bombers and intelligence flights. No one was coming. Quick Reaction Alert became something of the past. The birds weren't armed - there were only 14 fighters ready to fly that day covering the whole of the continental US. 14. Think about that. Things got...sloppy?

i was stationed at Nellis that day. actually i was stationed at Nellis from jan of 1999 to june of 2009. minus 44 months deployed to warzones. i had a clear view of the flightline, and as a smoker went outside the door, where i could both see the tv and the flightline. we had four types of birds fully armed and ready to launch within minutes of the second tower getting hit. if memory serves correctly it was less than 10 minutes, probably closer to 5, to be honest. We were also suppose to start some wargames that day. they got cancelled.

So whats my point? Well... when you think 9/11, you think of terrorism. But maybe, just maybe you ought to think about lethargy. About false pride. About taking things for granted.

sometimes i think about false hopes i put in others. after that day i seriously doubted the capability of others to do what it was their job description entailed, on many levels, i may add. yes, even my own abilities to do what it was i was bound by oath to do. pride can be a dangerous thing, i agree nef. both for the ones in denial that they have too much of it, and those who are on the recieving end of it's previously dormant rage.

The "truth" movement is founded on the fact that people simply can't believe an organised group could carry out such an attack on US soil.

for me, the "truth" movement is founded in the lack of actions and behaviors of officials and their inabilitiy or unwillingness to do the investigation by the book. there were protocols in place for NFPA standards of fire investigation that were not followed, nor permitted by the authorities. why bother having rules and laws, and standards if you are not going to follow them when they matter the most? Fire investigators (all of them in shock at the loss of life of their own kind) were not permitted to do their jobs. period.

I'm not knocking the general US armed services here, because I know they are made up of men and women who do their level best for their country - but heres the scary part - what if the people who are paid to make the really really tough decisions froze, and simply had no clue what to do, because - in all honesty - they never thought it would happen, and never prepared themselves for the day it did?

possible. but, i don't think so. i think there were contingency plans in place for such a mass casualty incident, and their were contengency plans (although outdated) for situations similiar to the destruction of the towers. although the manuals probably had to be dusted off, so to speak.

I still like what you say, though neformore. concerning this being the exception, not the rule. but, honestly, that day became the precident, a new comparison, a never before seen or witnessed atrocity. according to the authorities, was carried out by people who spent more than a decade on the CIA's payroll, or were assets of the CIA.

Its the one debate that no one ever really has. The competancy debate. Forget stand downs, collusions and supposed explosive demolitions and think about completely failed government in a time of crisis

Isn't that scary?

those in power do not retain power unless there is a fear of what would happen in their absence.

laws negate themselves when applied against themselves.
i have no idea how many laws there are.
i know i won't live long enough to learn them all word for word.
i know i pay taxes to pay more law makers to make even more laws.
i know the government does not have the means to enforce the laws that already exist.

my brother worked at the pentagon from the end of 2001 to late 2007.

his office was few doors down from rumsfeld's.

remember when there was talk of rumsfeld's resignation, or that he was trying to?
rumsfeld walked into my brother's office one day around that time.

my brother noticed his demeanor was casual, so my brother continued to type a report up on the computer while he told a joke to help lighten rumsfeld's day. it was something my brother would do almost every day he saw him, and when it was appropriate. as my brother finished his joke and the paragraph he was typing, he waited for a laugh, no laugh came. he looked up and saw rumsfeld weaping. i mean really crying. my brother logged off the computer. stood up. told donald to lay down on his couch and that he would be standing guard at the door until he woke up. my brother stood at that door for 14 hours. my brother does not lie to me.

thanks for this thread nef. it had to be said.


President Bush Saw the First Tower get hit on TV:

edit on 15-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher because: add video

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by plube
I am so happy many people are not that gullible on here

Truthers are very gullible as they do their "research" by only visiting those damn fool conspiracy sites, which is why they post so many lies here!

Just out of curiosity.. and this applies to all the people that call "Truthers" liers and other names... Why does this push your buttons so much? What differance does it make to you whether plube or anyone else believes that there are errors in the official story? Why is it so important that you point out every single little error and scream "LIAR!"?

Why don't you just ignore the subject? Does it affect your personally or something?

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:17 AM

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by neformore

What are you on??

Your link shows pics of the main metat structure still standing!!

Did you read the report - specifically the part I quoted. Obviously not.

How does that equate to the WTC ??

Do they teach you nothing in MOd school??

Like showing comparative proof??

Its a steel structure that collapsed due to fire.

Did no one teach you how to read and comprehend the sentences that are put in front of you?

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:17 AM

Originally posted by neformore
Things got...sloppy?


Isn't that scary?

this post is not personal, just sharing my professional opinion.

this is what i think may be something people are overlooking:

At what point on 9-11 was Martial Law implemented???

If the events of 9-11 did not warrant the implementation of Martial Law, then what would warrant Martial Law???


that would not serve what martial law exists for, now would it???

Martial Law IS: the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety

When was Martial Law Declared? IT WOULD NOT BE DECLARED!!!!!!!!

When was Martial Law relieved of command???


edit on 15-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by neformore

I think you left out a major piece in all this. The PDB report.

CIA and FBI and many other intelligence knew and worked to investigate the event that lead up to 911.

To me it seams like CIA deliberately prevented FBI from doing their investigation. It is as if CIA the US government wanted 911 to happen. CIA and and the US government knew about Bin Laden's terror threats but did nothing.

Why did Condoleezza get questioned about the PDB?

And after 911 took place. Where did CIA and the US government find their terrorist? They found him in the PDB report.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by neformore

Imagine if "9/11 Truth" was invented by TPTB in order to create a massive distraction from incompetance at the highest level. Get all the smart people asking questions and running round in circles in order to distract away from the real problem.

Are you playing, or are you being played?

To play is to get played. that is the nature of the game.

most people are focussing on who is at the healm, who has their hands on the steering wheel.

who has their hands on the steering wheel?


who is building the road?

Which question brings us closer to the truth:

Who has their hands on the steering wheel?
Who is building the roads?

edit on 15-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher because: real questions.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:55 PM

Originally posted by neformore
Its a steel structure that collapsed due to fire.

This is really grasping. If the small side curtain of that tower that wasn't even connected to the central columns collapsed like WTC 7 (after burning much hotter and much longer), 90% of the building wouldn't still be standing.

From your own link:

On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.

Has the argument gotten so emotional and petty that we'll have to specifically state no steel-frame 'building' or 'tower' has ever collapsed due to fire? I hope not...

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by neformore

Did no one teach you how to read and comprehend the sentences that are put in front of you?

Nice insults from a Mod and BTW, I finished top of my school, very high IQ, but not sure what that has to do with my opinion or my eyes...

Your link clearly shows the majority of the "Iron Structure" of the hotel still standing, unlike 3 buildings on 9/11..

Maybe you need your eyes checked..

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:25 AM
reply to post by neformore

Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours

By the time the fire broke out, the fire protection for all steelwork below the 17th floor had been completed except a proportion of the 9th and 15th floors. However, not all the gaps between the cladding and the floor slabs had been sealed with fireproof material (Dave 2005). Also fire stopping to voids and fire doors to vertical shafts were not fully installed.

At the time of the construction, the Spanish codes did not require fire protection to steelwork and sprinkler fire protection for the building.

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished.

So what is your point?

It was a badly contructed and badly fire protected building, it burned for 18-20 hours,
and yet it only partially collapsed !!

I think you have helped the truthers cause more than your own uneducated theory...

edit on 16-9-2010 by CynicalM because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by CynicalM
Mate, here it is on video from the US Goverment..

A heavily edited video... why didnt they show the full statement?

Here it is:

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

So the money is NOT missing like the truthers claim! "In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information."

More info here

The police can track criminals down nationwide, and with interpol's help worldwide.

Intellligence agencies can zoom in to 1 meter of any given target area from space.

All telephone calls, fax messages and emails get scanned/filtered by central mainframe computers.

YET THE PENTAGON CANNOT TRACE $2.3 TRIILLION FROM ITS OWN BUDGET due to lack of compatability issues? Dude that simply is not true and you know it better than anyone else. You've been posting here for years and supporting corruption the entire time.

Maybe you were talking about the syrian government but the USA is no syria..........

posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 02:49 AM
reply to post by neformore

If the truth movement is correct then the US government is complicit in the murder of 3000+ people.

Not necessarily, as there are many people in the truth movement who have not yet come to a conclusion as to what happened. We simply have too many unanswered questions and don't believe in the official conspiracy theory. I would say that it's safe to suggest that the truth movement believes the government is lying about what happened and covering something up regarding those events. So, if the truth movement is correct, then those in government are complicit in only covering up the truth.

Hold that thought.

The third 9/11 angle is this... the people who were put in place to prevent, to protect, to analyse, to outhink, to defend... actually simply dropped the ball completely?

Absolutely that could very well be the case, though we won't know until a real investigation is done and the findings are transparent, a key argument and goal of the Truth Movement to begin with. We are being asked to take the word of government on what happened and as we all know, the government doesn't seem to have a single issue with lying to us. As with almost anything in life, you can't simply take the word of someone without any kind of proof or evidence, especially when the consequences are so dire. We don't simply take the word of a car salesman or realtor, so why on Earth we would just take the word of government, even though the cost of what we are being asked to buy, is much higher than any automobile or home structure.

But... the cold war ended in 1990.

That's correct.

The fighters and interceptors were stood down.

That's incorrect. While many of the fighters and interceptors were stood down, we still had some on standby and the US government was still watching the skies. Sure, a Soviet nuclear attack was no longer a viable threat, but we still do have enemies and we still bump into the Russians every now and then.

It's silly to think that the US government would stand down all air defenses. In fact, almost every industrialized country has the ability to intercept potentially hostile aircraft that invade their airspace.

Were our air defenses more relaxed after the fall of the iron curtain? Absolutely, though they were still there and just as vigilant as you would expect with the world's premier military super-power. We didn't simply abandon our air defenses once we ejected our main opposition to complete world-dominance. After all, we did still have a country and continent to protect.

In fact, in the 9 months leading up to 9/11, from September 2000 to June 2001 (long after the collapse of the Soviet Union), fighters were scrambled 67 times to intercept wayward aircraft. If the US dismantled their air defenses after the end of the Cold War, then surely these sorties wouldn't have taken place. I'd also like to mention that this figure comes from an interception frequency report that quotes Maj. Douglas Martin, who also happens to be one of the cited experts used by Popular Mechanics to try and discredit the truth movement.

As far as your suggestion that our interceptors weren't armed, that's simply not true. Protocol (at least until a few months prior to 9/11) was to have a small number of interceptors on standby, locked, loaded and ready to blast. While 14 aircraft doesn't seem like a lot, just a set (two) of our 3rd Gen fighters has the ability to knock a good percentage of the most countries air forces out of the sky. This is even more accurate when the opponents are commercial aircraft that lack defensive measures, speed and agility.

Also, if these aircraft were hijacked over Idaho and flown into buildings in Kansas, then I could understand the argument that 14 interceptors may not have been enough, but these aircraft that were hijacked and their ultimate targets were all located extremely close to the home bases of these stationed interceptors. In realty, if there really were only 14 interceptors available, then that means there were at least a pair of fighters for each commercial aircraft. This is compounded by the time separation of each strike, which puts the ratio of fighter to hijacked aircraft even higher.

We know that scrambling aircraft to intercept wayward or non-responsive aircraft prior to 9/11 was never a problem and the fighters were always where they needed to be, when they needed to be there (more or less) so if for whatever reason they weren't on 9/11, then some serious questions need to be asked... and answered. Simply stating that the cold war was over and so our air defenses were more relaxed is not a valid answer, as it wasn't a problem in the 9 months leading up to 9/11.

Likewise, the professional mystique of NORAD, those steely people in the mountain that are ready to unleash armageddon if need be and make the really difficult choices as soon as they see inbounds... dropped the ball. They simply didn't seem to know what to do. The command and control faltered, and failed.

Again, this is false and seems to be fitting the evidence to a preconceived outcome. You have to look at the evidence and then go by what the evidence is suggesting, not the other way around. To suggest that the highly competent professionals in the Crystal Palace simply didn't know what to do and so dropped the ball, is fool-hearted at best. These guys train for that very situation, along with just about every other scenario that could possibly happen and they are among the most qualified for the job. These guys are the cream of the crop and they are certainly at the top of their game for issues such as this.

You also have to remember that these guys successfully and without error, scrambled fighters on many of different occasions leading up to 9/11. If they were such bumbling bafoons during 9/11, why then were they extremely competent before that fateful day? Wouldn't they have done the same thing and screwed up before 9/11 then?

That argument would be a little more plausible or probable even, if only they hadn't executed their jobs so perfectly in the months and years leading up to the attack. This isn't a group of fly-by-night characters who just happened to walk into an office building in Colorado Springs, apply for a job and then put on the clock where they sit around watching TV programs. While that may make a good Hollywood movie scene, it is not anywhere close to being reality. If these guys had a task before them, then they executed it in a perfect manner along the limitations of the resources they were allotted. After all, they are the best of the best, utilizing the best of the best equipment. It's simply a combination that doesn't fail and if by chance it does, questions need to be asked that weren't.

Then there's the "intelligence" services who seem to have missed the whole trick completely.

Again, that assessment is inaccurate, at least to say with any plausible amount of certainty. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that they were warned about a possible attack. Furthermore, a certain FBI agent, John O'Neill, was repeatedly obstructed by the Bush Admin on his efforts to investigate Bin Laden and ordered to back off of the Bin Ladens before 9/11 took place. This leads one to believe that there was an intentional effort to disrupt our intelligence agencies from locking on to the plot.

Regardless, in order for us to believe that our intelligence agencies didn't get a whiff of this incident before it took place, we simply have to take their word for it and as a potential suspect itself, our intelligence agencies or factions therein shouldn't be taken at their word. To say that our intelligence agencies hadn't caught wind of this plot before it happened is inaccurate at best, as it implies that you know this, when neither you or I know this to be true or not. We simply have to take the word of organizations that have perfected the art of being sneaking and lying.

Well... when you think 9/11, you think of terrorism. But maybe, just maybe you ought to think about lethargy. About false pride. About taking things for granted.

Again, if things would have been taken for granted or if false pride or lethargy were the culprits, then surely it would have showed in the many, many instances leading up to 9/11. Also, you have to factor in the other evidence, not just whether the planes were intercepted or not.

Take Building 7 for instance, which was not hit by a plane and which wasn't directly near the two other towers that were, yet fell neatly into it's own foot-print (practically). Building 7 was also reported as collapsed by the BBC, 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.

What about the plethora of witness testimony that suggests bombs were going off in lobbies and on floors, etc... What about the plethora of whistle blowers that since come forward or tried to come forward? , using the little-known [url=]states secrets privilege.

Why would Bush resist a 9/11 Commission, then staff it with both industry insiders and Bush Admin officials and personal friends as well as business partners? The only reason it was finally established, is because the movement to conduct an investigation was far too popular and so there was too much political pressure. Why would Bush and Cheney both refuse to meet this commission, then when public pressure was again too much to handle, they only accepted on the condition that they meet together, not under oath and behind closed doors with out record keeping? What were they trying to hide and if they had something to hide, they were obviously lying about something. If they are lying about one thing, why would it be a stretch to assume they were lying about other things? Why did the commission fail to address the better portion of questions that would have given us knowledge as to what really happened?

Questions like funding, who funded the attacks and where did the money come from? That's just a few examples of the mountain of evidence suggesting that there may be more to the story than what we are being told, evidence that would then have to be ignored (ignore, the root word of ignorance) in order to accept the OS and the theory that failure on part of government to do their jobs that day resulted in the devistation of that day.

The "truth" movement is founded on the fact that people simply can't believe an organised group could carry out such an attack on US soil.

No, you are wrong again, as both "truthers" and "believers" believe that an organized group conspired, then carried out an attack on US soil. Furthermore, the truth movement is founded on the fact that there are far too many questions that are going unanswered and the government simply wants us to take their word for what they say happened. In fact, most, if not all, people believe that an organized group conspired and then carried out an attack on US soil. The OS'rs believe the government when they are told it was a group of Arabs or Muslims, while many truthers believers that it may have involved a group operating within government (possibly in addition to a group of Islamic terrorists). Some truthers aren't ready to conclude yet, though simply refuse to take the word of government without supporting evidence, especially when their story requires us to stretch common sense. Just as I won't blindly trust the car salesman when I'm spending $40,000 as a result of a new car, I'm not going to blindly trust the government when I'm spending human lives and natural liberties as a result of the 9/11 attacks and the apparent corporate and strategic benefits that resulted thereafter.

Your making an assumption that is inherently false and frankly, insulting. You could easily make the wild and illconcieved assertion that the whole OS is built upon the ignorance of the public to look into something past their favorite pundit on network TV, though that too does little in the interests of furthering discussion.

That belief is based on an assumption of competancy in the system, that it simply couldn't happen to the US, because everything was in place to prevent it.

Well not really, though maybe when only considering the notion that the aircraft weren't intercepted. If the fact that the aircraft weren't intercepted is the only thing leading to discourse between those who believe the OS and those who don't, then that argument may be a little more viable. However, it's not so black and white and it's not simply a question of whether aircraft weren't intercepted or not. Rather, the fact that the aircraft weren't intercepted is just a small part of the puzzle.

If two aircraft simply slammed into the WTC buildings and those buildings simply burned and possibly collapsed and that's all there is to it, then surely NORAD being asleep at the wheel would at the very least be enough to say that the OS has at least a small chance of being correct. However, there are many more variables and the unanswered questions far outweigh the answered ones. In fact, in order for everything to happen that day, just as the authorities say it happened, it isn't just a simple case of a couple NORAD workers falling asleep at the wheel or even NORAD itself being unprepared, then there would have to have been multiple failures in a row, one after another to the point where people would at least be criminally neglegent. In fact, so many failures had to have happened, that easily raises many questions of whether it was done intentionally.

If you walk into a bank in broad daylight, clean out all of the clerks droors then open the safe (with the keys and combinations at the right time) and every bank employee is saying that never even knew they were robbed, you could either say that the bank fell asleep at the wheel and thousands of things went wrong all in perfect timing
or you can seek the much more plausible theory, that the bank employees could have had something to do with the robbery.

You also have to look at this from a terrorist's perspective. If they were so good at their planning, then surely they would have known that success would have been wholly dependent upon the systematic failure of each level of government to a point where the odds were completely against any kind of success. Would you really invest in such a plan that counted on such long shots and improbabilities? If they knew that there would be so many systematic failures, then how did they know, did they have insiders?

I'm not knocking the general US armed services here, because I know they are made up of men and women who do their level best for their country - but heres the scary part - what if the people who are paid to make the really really tough decisions froze, and simply had no clue what to do, because - in all honesty - they never thought it would happen, and never prepared themselves for the day it did?

That is simply not an accurate assessment. The US military does not "freeze" in a stressful situation. Maybe the 7-11 (corner-store here in the states) clerk freezes when being robbed, but he also doesn't get the world;s best training to deal with that robbery. Again, the US military doesn't just "freeze" and our ability to avoid such a vulnirable action is what has lead the US military to be the world's premier fighting and defense force. The US military, particularly the Air Force's NORAD (which also include Canada) is the best of the best and they train for years (some even longer) before being placed on the job. The commanders and officers in that command have a wealth of experience. In fact, when they aren;t working, they are training for various scenarios. "Freezing" would be a reaction that is foreign is to any NORAD watchman.


The thing to realize here, is that the 9/11 debate is not as simple as the aircraft not being intercepted. Of course, if the aircraft were intercepted, the day may not have happened nearly as bad as it had, though maybe it would have. The fact that the aircraft were not intercepted is only a small piece of the puzzle that is full of disturbing questions about that day. So, even if by some miracle that NORAD happened to "freeze" that day and not on any other day before that, you would still have a plethora of unanswered questions regarding the events of that day and subsequent media and government responses.

Just the fact that you are putting out theories suggests that you accept you don't know what may have lead to the failure. You should have the right to know what lead to that failure, especially seeing how the price to all of us is extremely high. For this reason alone, we should have a true, thorough and transparent investigation. In fact, that is all most "truthers" are asking for. I simply want to get to the truth, which basically means having the answers to my many questions that government seems to be ignoring or side-stepping.

On another less relevant or less serious note, I find it very odd that people seem to have no problem with believing that their government is lying to them about little gray beings, even going so far as to planting messages in popular movies as some type of slow disclosure movement, but these same people have a hard time believeing that elements within their government could be guilty of at least willingly allowing 9/11 to happen, then profittin from the recourse, especially given all of the inconsistencies with their story and the odd behavior after the fact. Lol, am I missing something here?


  • NORAD scrambled jets 67 times from September 2000 to June 2001 * AP Website Requires Payment to View Article, this link is to the same article but from a free source.
  • 9/11: Top FBI Al Qaeda Investigator
    John O'Neill Quits, Dies in WTC

  • 9/11 Timeline, History Commons
  • Building 7
  • Building 7 Prior Knowledge
  • Reportedly a new FOIA 2010 Video: Firefighters discuss explosions on 9/11 *There are many, many others.
  • Sibel Edmonds, Wikipedia
  • Mysterious Deaths of 911 Witnesses
  • State Secret Priviledge
  • 9/11 Commission: Opposition and Obfuscation
  • Philip D. Zelikow
  • Counter Punch
  • Family Steering Committee

  • posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 08:14 AM
    reply to post by Drunkenshrew

    He was also the main sponsor of the Leahy law, which is a human rights stipulation in the U.S. congressional foreign assistance legislation. The Leahy Law prohibits U.S. military assistance to foreign military units that violate human rights with impunity

    Also a prime example of an individual that should be held responsible for what happened to us on 9/11/01. All the feel good crap perpetuated on us by our "well meaning' Congressmen and Senators is what helped lead to that day.

    I dont like dirtbags like the ones that stone women to death for talking to a man outside of her family, or circumsize their preteen daughters or behead women for driving cars etc.....but a lot of times, its THOSE dirtbags that have the information we need to protect our country. And people like Senator Leahy made it a crime for our intelligence agencies to talk to them.

    new topics

    << 1  2   >>

    log in