The Amazing Debate - Prezbyter & James Randi on 9-11...

Main Page | Report this Page

Politics Forum Index » FBI Politics Forum » The Amazing Debate - Prezbyter & James Randi on 9-11...

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

The Amazing Debate - Prezbyter & James Randi on 9-11...

Author

Message

I, Enemy Combatant...

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:58 am

Guest

The Amazing Debate - Prezbyter & James Randi on 9-11
http://whatreallyhappened.com/blogs/prezbyter/09/10/08/amazing-debate-prezbyter-james-randi-9-11

Hi James:

I'm a little troubled by the number of 'skeptics' who are skeptical of
everything except what is promoted as the conventional wisdom. A
simple test for me is does the person or group making a claim have a
history of dishonesty. Are they liars?

The Bush/Cheney administration claimed that Iraq was involved in the
crimes of 9/11. Repeatedly. This has been proven to be a lie, among
many other lies by those guys. Lies that profited them and their
associates. They referred to 9/11 as an 'opportunity'. It was a crime
most egregious. If they lied about the involvement of one
nation/collective, then how I wonder does a skeptic believe what they
said about the involvement of another nation/collective?

By eschewing real skepticism.

The belief in lies is the encouragement of liars.
Do they really need more?

Regards

(The Amazing Randi:)
Specify. I'm not good at guessing what you're trying to say.

James Randi.

(Prezbyter:)
My apologies - I'm referring to The Amazing Meeting in Britain, where
again those of us who find the official story of 9/11 to defy reason
are lumped in with people who believe in garden fairies and paranormal
apparitions. I find that any serious study of the events of that world
shaping day leads those devoid of predisposition to express skepticism
and outright incredulity at the official story.

It troubles me that questioning the dubious words of qualified liars
requires donning aluminum foil chapeau and denial of holocaust. It
troubles me more, that those who promote skepticism readily accept
that which is perhaps less unsettling than the probability of an
alternate reality. The majority of those commissioned to write the
9/11 report suggest it is a whitewash. After considerable study, I'm
inclined to agree. According to BBC the JREF (James Randi Educational
Foundation) toes the official line.

If I didn't respect you and your work, it wouldn't trouble me. Because
I do, I felt the need to share this perspective with you.

Thanks for your consideration.

(The Amazing Randi:)
I share your disdain of the Bush administration, but I find the 9/11
conspiracy idea far too convoluted and far-reaching, directed toward
finding supporting evidence, and not to examining the basic evidence.
We could – if we wanted – find evidence in the appearance of Glenn
Hill at TAM London, that we were supporting belief in fairies…

James Randi

(Prezbyter:)
Surely you'll agree that the basic evidence of crimes such as these is
considerable - thousands of people were involved (everyone in those
mysteriously and thus far inexplicably imploding steel buildings, the
equally mysteriously undefended Pentagon, air traffic controllers and
passengers etc.)

My disdain for the prior administration (and the ones prior to that
and the current one as well) notwithstanding, the simple facts speak
volumes: steel buildings with fire weakened upper floors suddenly
manifest the gravitational energy to crush everything below (all
structurally sound as evidenced by their response to the impacts) at
virtual free fall speeds; WTC 7 collapsing apparently out of sympathy
for its bigger neighbors, also at free fall speed; the all but
impossible 330 degree turn of flight 77 into the undefended Pentagon,
bypassing the biological targets of value in direct line of flight for
the mainly civilian accountants in the impacted section (probably
trying to find the 2 trillion that Rummy announced on 9/10 had gone
missing).

There is no shortage of evidence available for the layman, some
clearly designed to misdirect. But to imagine something as horrific as
9/11 occurring simple and easy to explain is to deny human behavior.
Complicating the simple is what we are best at. If 19 semi literate
cave dwellers could pull it off and get away with it, why is it so
hard to imagine people closer, more insidious and well placed could as
well? You'll note that 8 years later and maybe a million murdered as a
'response' to these atrocities, there have been no (0) convictions of
anyone for their involvement and those who have been accused have been
tortured to confess. Under those conditions, who among us is innocent?

Politics is a convoluted field and war the result of lazy minds
looking for the easiest (and most profitable) solution. It's easier to
punch someone in the mouth then figure out a reasoned response - at
least at first. Then things tend to get more complicated.

Thank you for considering my perspective. I appreciate the opportunity
to engage you as I have respected your work for many years.

I hope you are well.

Peace

(The Amazing Randi:)
ONLY if there was a conspiracy, would “thousands of persons” have been
involved! You are presuming the conclusion in order to prove it! We
can find whatever we wish by examining any situation -- if we decide
in advance what conclusion we'd like to arrive at... Look at the
Dreyfus Affair, for an example.

The Bush administration was corrupt, illogical, ignorant, and
fanatical. It's now gone. We have no argument there. In my mind, I
have ZERO problem accepting that a group of religious fanatics, as
convinced of immortality as Bush is, guided planes into two symbols of
American prosperity. No "inside help" was necessary. Tons of jet fuel
ignited the mass of flammable material in the WTC and created a huge,
well-fueled and air-supplied furnace that then weakened the support of
the structures and brought them down. The conspiracy nuts choose to
say that “jet fuel” melted steel, ignoring the reality of the facts.
That jet fuel was consumed within minutes, after igniting the rest.
Jet fuel will NOT melt steel. The thousands of tons of falling
material simply destroyed the still-standing-but-weakened remainder.
This is a viable view.

I still don’t understand the references to “free fall speeds,”
obviously just selected from the more frantic conspiracy sites. ALL
OBJECTS fall that way! It’s called “gravity,” and it’s no mystery.
Newton came up with s=ut+.5at2 long ago, and it still works! ALL
BUILDINGS “implode” when their inner supports are removed or fail –
that cannot be accomplished by an EX-plosion, which would eject
material. You have chosen to accept some of the most egregious false
claims made by the highly-organized and spurious “truther” sites.

James Randi

(Prezbyter:)
Clearly unless these purported hijackers were working independently
there was a conspiracy. The thousands I characterized as involved were
not behind it, nor did I suggest that - I clearly described them as
the victims, the people in every area who had to contend with the days
events, not as the perpetrators (unless you imagine me so daft as to
describe everyone in the buildings and planes as co-conspirators). I
examine the available evidence, not merely what I choose to confirm my
conclusion. You and many others have 'ZERO' problem accepting the
story of people who offered no evidence, achieved no convictions and
you yourself admit were "corrupt, illogical, ignorant, and fanatical".

That seems to me to be accepting a conclusion which is more comforting
than the only reasonable alternative. Not clear why 9/11 debunkers
suggest we who do question the official wisdom (you know, skeptics)
like the conclusion that forces within our government were involved -
that just means we paid for it as well. Quite insulting.

You suggest "no inside help was necessary". Convenient then for these
religious fanatics (the Islamic ones, not the Christians or Jews) that
the lion’s share of our air defenses were drilling in Canada during
operation "Able Danger" and VP Cheney ordered a stand down of the
forces which would normally defend the Pentagon. Transpo Secretary
Norman Mineta testified to that regard to the 9/11 Commission
(testimony omitted from the final report, because it contradicted
Cheney's recollection when he testified not under oath).

Those symbols of American prosperity were appropriately losing money
and facing a billion dollar asbestos removal fee. Fortunate then for
Larry Silverstein who took out a 99 year lease in July that year and
insured those symbols (full of people) for billions in case of
terrorist attacks, that they attacked before he started clean up. He
not only saved a cool billion but is reported to have collected
upwards of $7 billion on the insurance policies.

Perhaps the nuts say 'melted' but those of us who understand physics
know that carbon based fires cannot melt steel. Odd then that molten
steel was reported in the rubble for weeks subsequent to the WTC
implosions. I suppose the hijackers were carrying it with them when
they boarded the planes, though they usually make one check their
molten steel with the other cargo. Steel when heated sufficiently
bends. The steel on the 90 or so floors beneath the initial collision
didn't bend though, nor did it in the other towers - it all collapsed
globally, instantaneously and symmetrically as well. One normally
spends millions to bring down a big building into its footprint
instead of toppling over, like one would rightly expect bending steel
to do. 9/11 is the only time thus far in history that steel buildings
have collapsed in such a manner without controlled demolition - at
least operating on the official story.

Consider: the areas of damage were weakened - not the many floors
below. They were as solid and strong as before the crashes (as was WTC
7 which didn't get hit by a plane and was not mentioned in the 9/11
Commission report). Imagine (or better watch the many videos) a 47
story steel building collapses into its own footprint and the people
investigating the atrocities of that day didn't see fit to mention it.
With the right eyes one can see much in what is omitted as well as
what is revealed.

All objects fall at free fall speeds? With hundreds of thousands of
tons of steel supporting it? Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel
designed to withstand collision with an airliner which as the visual
evidence shows they did. The planes hit, burst through and the
buildings barely shuddered. They stood there unyielding then suddenly
collapsed all at once. A reasonable mind would consider all that steel
as creating resistance. But to understand this resistance is to be
labeled 'frantic' or 'nut'. What did Sagan say about ad hominem
attacks in The Demon Haunted World - The Skeptics Toolkit? He
suggested such labels were the sign of weakness of argument -
attacking the arguer not the argument.

Terrorism is a military response where no sanctioned military exists.
Terrorism is pointless if it is not motivated by a grievance or
seeking a result. Bin Laden took responsibility for the embassy
bombings in Africa, explained why such action was taken. What were the
demands and who made those demands on 9/11?

There were no demands, no claim of responsibility, no grievance used
as justification by bin Laden or any other individual or collective.
With no demands, or credit claimed, we are then expected to 'believe'
that these 19 religious fanatics committed murder/suicide in what was
little more than an act of homicidal vandalism.

I suggest you look closer at some of the material regarding this
atrocity. As stated, the majority of the commissioners who produced
the 9/11 Commission Report suggest it was a whitewash. They studied
the evidence. Perhaps if more people did that we could be sure the
real perpetrators are held accountable - not just the ones who make us
feel better about bombing Asians to death for the profits of a few.

Regards

(The Amazing Randi:)
References, please…?

1. “testimony omitted from the final report, because it contradicted
Cheney's recollection when he testified not under oath.”

2. “the majority of the commissioners who produced the 9/11 Commission
Report suggest it was a whitewash.”

James Randi.

(Prezbyter:)
Hi James:

I appreciate your willingness to consider the points I've attempted to
make. I will make a correction in my earlier statements (it was 5:30
AM and I was writing extemporaneously): The war games were not called
Able Danger, they were called Vigilant Guardian, Global Guardian
(telling eh?) and Vigilant Warrior. Those war games removed US air
defenses out of their bases on the East coast and set up many false
'assaults' for NORAD and the FAA to respond to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001

1. Norman Mineta testified before Lee Hamilton that he was in the PEOC
(Presidential Emergency Operations Center) with Cheney (at least half
an hour before Cheney claimed to be). This testimony was not included
in the Commission Report. Why?
“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there
was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the
plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down
to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice
president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still
stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?"
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html

If the orders were to shoot down a hijacked aircraft heading toward
the seat of government, it clearly never happened. As fighters were on
the ground less than 10 miles from the Pentagon and Flight 77 had been
hijacked almost an hour before, the only reason for those planes to be
on the ground was on order. Clearly Mineta's statement defines where
those orders came from.

2. Below excerpts from an interview with commission head Lee Hamilton
who in his co-authored book (with other commission head Thomas Kean)
suggested the Commission was set up to fail. I admit they didn't use
the word 'whitewash'.
Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission
was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that
it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you
certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do
you think you were set up to fail?
Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were
substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first
choices...

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

"Government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted
body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the
greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that
obstruction." Thomas Kean/Lee Hamiton op ed NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

"But the public will never know and the 9/11 commission will never
know because under the current deal, a minority of commissioners will
see a small number of documents and then brief the White House on what
they're going to tell the other commissioners." Max Cleland 9/11
Commission.
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006...

I don't have hats of tin. I don't believe in stuff because to me
belief is defined by total lack of evidence. I don't make this stuff
up and the implications are clearly unsettling. But just because it's
disturbing and difficult to accept doesn't make it true or untrue.
That's why I skeptically read everything I can about the subject at
hand before I postulate upon it. Wish more people operated that way.

(The Amazing Randi:)
I see… Mineta is the source of this material, then? What do you know
about this man…?

James Randi

(Prezbyter:)
Mineta is merely the source placing Cheney in the PEOC in command
during the events of the day. His testimony was, unlike Cheney's,
under oath. And his testimony, unlike Cheney's was corroborated by
Richard Clarke in his book "Against All Enemies", published before the
9/11 Commission was convened.

Two people testifying under oath (which Clarke did as well) in accord
trump a known profiteering liar in my estimation. Judges are inclined
to advise juries to disregard the testimony of witnesses who have been
caught lying on the stand - the lie becomes the precedent. Or in this
case, the lie was the vice precedent.

There is an abundance of material regarding this - much as previously
stated misdirection (melting steel, buildings collapsing straight down
into all their support structure traveling the course of least
resistance, no planes hitting the towers etc.) It doesn't take a
genius or structural engineer to see through most of them - many
ridiculous claims are clearly proffered to lump people who are
skeptical of the governments stated position into a kooky group of
nuts and loons. Just because we don't believe the words of obvious
liars, doesn't mean we believe nonsense. We want those responsible
held accountable - if they are not, what's to stop the next false flag
and the one after that?

An interesting additional note can be found on the FBI 10 Most Wanted
web page:

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998,
BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA,
AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION,
BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE
WORLD.

This was lifted directly from the FBI web page, just now. While the
FBI is a domestic organization, there is no mention of bin Laden as a
suspect in the single greatest act of terrorism in the continental
USA. Much can be learned by what is omitted as by what is reported.
The FBI. What do you know about this organization...?

(The Amazing Randi:)
The fact that Bin Laden is not designated – in this release – as the
one behind 9/11, is suspicious? I didn’t have to be told that. I’d
already heard it – AS EVERYONE HAS!

James Randi

(Prezbyter:)
Well James, I can't really speak for what you might or might not have
heard - I'm afraid my tin foil hat impairs my psychic abilities.
Surprised you of all people wouldn't know that. You wearing one too?

As to the 'release' which EVERYONE HAS HEARD (EVERYONE? pretty broad
constituency) it is on a US government web site (which I have linked
so you don't have to rely on your hearing). Eight years after the
fact, the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to proclaim bin Laden as a
suspect in this nation's greatest crime isn't suspicious if he didn't
have material involvement - but suggestive if he did, wouldn't you
agree? The FBI has enough evidence to proclaim him a 10 Most Wanted
suspect on the embassy bombings in Africa, an entirely different
continent but in 8 years, not a single mention in regard to 9/11 on
this one.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm

But really, what does the FBI know when faced with the investigative
prowess of the Bush/Cheney administration, so proficient that cavemen
with box cutters were able to bring the most powerful nation on Earth
to its knees using stolen subsonic civilian aircraft under their
watch? And don't forget about those WMDs in Iraq. I mean Iran... While
the FBI deals with evidence and facts in courts of law, the people you
and so many others agree with deal with innuendo and mendacity in the
court of public opinion. Kinda hard to argue with that. But I'm always
willing to try...

Peace

Prezbyter

myspace.com/prezbyter

(To be continued ...)
____________________________________________________

Will the Amazing Randi slink off into the shadows of the night, like
the fake psychics and pseudo-scientists he exposes, or will he stand
his ground, plant both feet firmly on the bedrock of science, hold his
head upright and stare out into the sea of his followers and say: "I
was wrong."

I, Enemy Combatant...

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:13 am

Guest

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:51:11 -0700, "Count 1"
<omnipitus2002 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

"George" <gblack at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:a44cfc48-5377-4092-a82f-310f9d6bb159 at (no spam) s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 12, 4:58 am, "I, Enemy Combatant" <antisem... at (no spam) battlefield.usa
wrote:

Will the Amazing Randi slink off into the shadows of the night, like
the fake psychics and pseudo-scientists he exposes, or will he stand
his ground, plant both feet firmly on the bedrock of science, hold his
head upright and stare out into the sea of his followers and say: "I
was wrong."

Well so far he hasn't been incorrect about his few claims.
However it is the kook claims that he (the JREF) investigates.

JR asked for references, so the jury is still out on who are the
"kooks."

Quote:

If you wish to take the Challenge do so and don't hide in here
blathering on about it!
***

I CHALLENGE YOU to stop cutting the ng's from MY phucking thread.
I'm not hiding from the FBI - you are.

Quote:

"There is a big difference between being open minded and having a hole in
your head from which your brains leak out."
(Not Verbatim) - James Randi

A skeptic defines God as someone who can defy science and perform
supernatural acts.

That's exactly what Osama bin Laden did when he sat in a cave on the
other side of the world and turned the WTC into a pillar of salt.

Also, He has eluded capture by the CIA, FBI, and Blackwater, so there
is no doubt in my mind - if OBL is not God, He's God Damned Good.

Bin's Boss

Terrorists are but patsies
So the Spooks can have their way
Like Oswald and the Nazis
They work for the C.I.A.

How the CIA created Osama bin Laden
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

George...

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:23 am

Guest

On Oct 13, 2:13 am, "I, Enemy Combatant" <antisem... at (no spam) battlefield.usa>
wrote:

Quote:

Get your minders to increase the medication to a dangerous level

I, Enemy Combatant...

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:05 am

Guest

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:58:32 -0700, "I, Enemy Combatant"
<antisemite at (no spam) battlefield.usa> wrote:

Quote:

The Amazing Debate - Prezbyter & James Randi on 9-11
http://whatreallyhappened.com/blogs/prezbyter/09/10/08/amazing-debate-prezbyter-james-randi-9-11

Hi James:

Into the Air, Junior Birdmen!

NASA Engineer to Speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627
Encinitas resident a leader among 900 architects and engineers

San Diego - On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, former NASA engineering
executive Dwain Deets, will speak on behalf of more than 900
architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition at
all three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11 and are calling for a
new, independent investigation into their destruction.

Mr. Deets’ multimedia presentation will begin at 12:00 p.m. at the
Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, on the campus of
University of San Diego, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110. The
event will conclude at 3:00 p.m.

An engineer with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center for more than 37
years, Mr. Deets is a board member and the writing team leader for
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). Comprised of more
than 900 architects and engineers listed on their website at
AE911Truth.org, the organization contends that the official FEMA and
NIST reports fail, for several reasons, to explain correctly the
towers’ destruction. AE911Truth points in particular to the
destruction of the third high-rise, World Trade Center 7, which was
not hit by a plane but came down in less than seven seconds. These 900
architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new
investigation.

Mr. Deets will include in his presentation an abridged version of
9/11: Blueprint for Truth, featuring Richard Gage, AIA, a San
Francisco Bay area architect of 20 years, the founder and CEO of
AE911Truth, and a member of the American Institute of Architects.

The organization’s conclusions are shared by hundreds of scientists;
senior-level military, intelligence, and government officials;
firefighters; pilots and aviation professionals; scholars and
university professors; 9/11 survivors and family members; and media
professionals around the world.

In 1986, Mr. Deets was awarded the Wright Brothers Lectureship in
Aeronautics by the American Institute for Aeronautics and
Astronautics. He became aware of the many problems with the official
reports concerning 9/11, and began speaking publicly on this topic in
2007. He and his wife have been residents of Encinitas for the past
six years.

This event is sponsored by the Toreros for Truth, a University of San
Diego club with a purpose to promote, and in part to provide, the best
in investigative reporting, scholarly research and public education
regarding the suppressed realities of September 11th, its aftermath
and exploitation for political ends.

Please forward this Press Release to any group or individual you think
might be interested- this is a free event and open to the public.

Contact: Event information: Aaron Brown; Program content: Dwain Deets
Phone: Brown: 909-576-2800 Deets: 760-445-3242
Email: TorerosForTruth at (no spam) gmail.com
Event Date: Wednesday, October 21, 12:00 p.m.

...

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:28 pm

Guest

On Oct 11, 11:58 am, "I, Enemy Combatant" <antisem... at (no spam) battlefield.usa>
wrote:

Let's pick out just a few of Prezbyter's more blatant lies:

Quote:

My disdain for the prior administration (and the ones prior to that
and the current one as well) notwithstanding, the simple facts speak
volumes: steel buildings with fire weakened upper floors suddenly
manifest the gravitational energy to crush everything below

Prezbyter doesn't understand the difference between static load and
dynamic load.
l

Quote:

structurally sound as evidenced by their response to the impacts) at
virtual free fall speeds;

It didn't happen, as evidence by the photographs showing material from
the tops of the building reaching the ground long before the rest of
the building collapses.

WTC 7 collapsing apparently out of sympathy

Quote:

for its bigger neighbors, also at free fall speed;

Again, it didn't happen that way. WTC7 was severely damaged by
material falling from the collapse of tower 1 and burned internally
for most of the day on 9/11.

Quote:

the all but impossible 330 degree turn of flight 77

What's so impossible about a 330 degree descending turn? A student
pilot learns to do 360 degree turns around a point within a few hours
of beginning instruction.

Quote:

into the undefended Pentagon,

What kind of defenses do you expect that there would be there? Have
you ever seen antiaircraft missiles or gun emplacements around the
building? They are sort of large installations and would be kind of
hard to miss.

Quote:

bypassing the biological targets of value in direct line of flight for
the mainly civilian accountants in the impacted section

If one examines photographs of the Pentagon, the side that was struck
is the only side that has nothing in front of it. The other four
sides have structures located next to the Pentagon.

Quote:

(probably
trying to find the 2 trillion that Rummy announced on 9/10 had gone
missing).

Which isn't what was announced at all.

Quote:

There is no shortage of evidence available for the layman, some
clearly designed to misdirect. But to imagine something as horrific as
9/11 occurring simple and easy to explain is to deny human behavior.
Complicating the simple is what we are best at. If 19 semi literate
cave dwellers

The 19 hijackers were anything but "semi-literate cave dwellers".
They were university trained, intelligent individuals.

Quote:

You suggest "no inside help was necessary". Convenient then for these
religious fanatics (the Islamic ones, not the Christians or Jews) that
the lion’s share of our air defenses were drilling in Canada during
operation "Able Danger"

Which is an out and out lie. The regular complement of alert aircraft
"defending" the United States was available on 9/11, that was
available every day prior to 9/11. Fourteen aircraft, stationed at
air bases scattered around the perimeter of the United States. This
has been discussed ad nauseum on alt.conspiracy
over the last few years with citations provided.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050305220257/http://www.norad.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.welcome

"Deter, Detect, Defend." That is the motto of the men and women who
serve in the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Since 1958,
Canadians and Americans have been partners in protecting the airspace
of Alaska, Canada and the contiguous 48 United States. The mission has
evolved over the years.

Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost
exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American
borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day,
NORAD's focus has increased to include domestic airspace. NORAD's
mission is truly global.

Prior to Sept. 11, NORAD was a word that was associated predominately
with the Cold War. The eyes and ears of NORAD were focused on
aerospace threats that may come from sources far away from the shores
of Canada and the United States. "

Here's a few items for your reading pleasure:

Fron an article at
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2002/0202norad_print.html

"Down to Seven Bases

Like every government organization, NORAD was caught off guard on
Sept. 11. The monitoring of threats went on as usual that day but
NORAD operators were looking outward from US borders, seeking incoming
danger. NORAD did not anticipate attacks in which civil airliners
would be hijacked from domestic airports and turned into weapons
against US targets.

At the time of the attacks, only seven locations-around the perimeter
of the United States-were engaged in the air defense mission. Each was
assigned a pair of Air National Guard fighter aircraft ready to
scramble if US airspace were threatened.

These alert locations had F-15 or F-16 fighters on the runways,
fueled, and ready to take off in fewer than 15 minutes.

It was, however, a greatly diminished presence, said Maj. Gen. Paul A.
Weaver Jr., now retired, who was at the time the director of the Air
National Guard. He said that, during the Cold War, the air defense
force structure was much more robust. Fighters sat fueled and ready to
take off, if directed by NORAD, at "well over 100 alert sites."

Weaver said the number of sites was reduced because it was widely
believed the threat to the United States had essentially disappeared.
Some questioned the need to maintain even the seven alert bases.
"Based upon the threat, seven sites was [considered] adequate for the
outward threat," he said. "Never did we believe the threat would come
from within."

The seven air bases with aircraft on permanent alert Sept. 11 were
arranged around the Pacific, Gulf, and Atlantic coastlines. This
perimeter arrangement was a reflection of pre-attack thinking that was
focused on external threats."

and:

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home2.htm

"The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty
mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under
the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall. The Guard maintains
seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the
clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at
Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.;
Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington
Field, Texas."

And then there's this:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GOVPUBS/gao/gao19.htm

"The continental air defense evolved during the Cold War to detect and
intercept Soviet bombers attacking North America via the North Pole.
GAO concludes that such an air defense is no longer needed and could
be disbanded at an annual savings of as much as $370 million. "

This dates from 1994. It goes on:

"The U.S. portion of that force is currently comprised of 180 Air
National Guard F-15A/B and F-16A/B aircraft located in 10 units and 14
alert sites in the United States."

"A dedicated continental air defense force is no longer needed. Since
the threat of a Soviet-style air attack against the United States has
largely disappeared, the air defense force has been focusing its
activities on air sovereignty missions."

"NORAD plans to reduce the number of alert sites in the continental
United States to 14 and provide 28 aircraft for the day-to-day
peacetime air sovereignty mission. Each alert site will have two
fighters, and their crews will be on 24-hour duty and ready to
scramble within 5 minutes. "

Quote:

and VP Cheney ordered a stand down of the
forces which would normally defend the Pentagon.

No, he didn't. See above.

Quote:

Transpo Secretary
Norman Mineta testified to that regard to the 9/11 Commission
(testimony omitted from the final report, because it contradicted
Cheney's recollection when he testified not under oath).

Mineta's testimony contradicts itself. By his own words he can't be
right.

Let's take a look at Mineta's own timeline from his testimony.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing...

At 9:03, he was in his office and saw the plane hit WTC2:

"While Mr. Flaherty was briefing me, I watched as a
large commercial jet flew into the second tower of the World
Trade Center."

He then did the following things:

"I once more returned to the conference room and informed the
minister (the Belgian transport minister) of what had happened and
ended the meeting."

"I received a telephone call from the CEO of United Airlines, Jack
Goodman, telling me that one of United's flights was missing."

"I then called Don Carty, the CEO of American Airlines, and asked him
to see if American Airlines could account for all of its aircraft."

"...the White House called my chief of staff
and asked if I could come to the White House and operate from
that location. I decided that, given the nature of the attack
and the request, that I should be at the White House directly
providing the president and the vice president with information."

Given all of this activity, how could Mineta have even left his
office at the DOT before about 9:15 AM, at best?

The DOT office is at 400 7th Street, S.W., which is a good 12-15
blocks from the White House. At least 15 minutes at best in a limo,
assuming one is instantly available.

"When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated.
I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council
staff member, who had no new information."

and yet Clark's testimony says that he's either in or preparing to be
in a video conference at this time (9:20).

"Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential
Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC. I
established contact on two lines, one with my chief of staff at the
Department of Transportation, and the second with Monty Belger,
the acting deputy administrator of the FAA, and Jane Garvey,
both of whom were in the FAA operations center."

Not a word about seeing or talking to VP Cheney yet. And he also
managed to accomplish all of this between 9:03 AM and, what? 9:20 AM?

"I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m."

Can you not see the physical impossiblity of what Mineta is claiming
to "remember"?

Then we have the famously quoted exchange:

"MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to
focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating
Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you
were there with the vice president. And when you had that order
given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the
shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be
controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was
given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it
during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon.
There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice
president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles
out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the
young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still
stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck
around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you
heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know
what all that meant. And --
MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --
MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon."

Now remember that Flight 77 wasn't on anyone's radar scope until
around 9:30 AM. It's fairly obvious that Mineta is just plain
confused about the timeline of the events of that morning.

Quote:

Those symbols of American prosperity were appropriately losing money
and facing a billion dollar asbestos removal fee.

No, sport they weren't losing money and there was no "asbetos removal
fee". There wasn't even asbestos installed in more than half of the
tower space. No one is required to remove asbestos unless it is
disturbed by renovation or for some other reason. Literally thousands
of buildings in the United States have asbestos in them.

Quote:

Fortunate then for
Larry Silverstein who took out a 99 year lease in July that year and
insured those symbols (full of people) for billions in case of
terrorist attacks,

Gosh, do you think that might have had something to do with an event
that occurred in 1993?

Quote:

that they attacked before he started clean up. He
not only saved a cool billion but is reported to have collected
upwards of $7 billion on the insurance policies.

Which he is paying out to have the towers rebuilt. For example,
construction of the new WTC7 was completed in 2006 at a cost of $700
million. Though Silverstein received $861 million from insurance on
the old building, he had $400 million remaining in mortgage to pay
off.

Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for the World Trade Center
requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.
He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the
World Trade Center site.

Yeah, sport, Silverstein really made a lot of money from 9/11.

And that's just an example of the lies in the presented text.

Al Smith...

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:43 pm

Guest

On 10/14/2009 12:05 PM, I, Enemy Combatant wrote:

Quote:

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:58:32 -0700, "I, Enemy Combatant"
antisemite at (no spam) battlefield.usa> wrote:

The Amazing Debate - Prezbyter & James Randi on 9-11
http://whatreallyhappened.com/blogs/prezbyter/09/10/08/amazing-debate-prezbyter-james-randi-9-11

We might call them masterdebators ... which I'm sure is true in the
case of a guy named Randi.

-Al-

...

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:32 pm

Guest

On Oct 15, 5:45 pm, "I, Enemy Combatant" <antisem... at (no spam) battlefield.usa>
wrote:

Quote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:28:22 -0700 (PDT), agen... at (no spam) justicemail.com
wrote:

Let's pick out just a few of Prezbyter's more blatant lies:

You have a wonderful working knowledge of the Neocon/Masonic 9-11 FLIM
FLAM talking points.

Nice that you consider FACTS as merely "talking points". BTW, what
facts did you present?

Quote:

I am very impressed.

The simple minded are always easy to impress.

Quote:

I would like to recommend that your boss, Dick Cheney, gives you a pay
raise and a promotion.

I'm afraid I don't know the man.

Quote:

I would recommend a Christmas bonus too, but I know you're a Jew.

And you are obviously a racist. Among other things. Intelligence
isn't one of your strong suits either.

Quote:

Keep up the good work:-)

Be happy to. Perhaps you would consider discontinuing spreading of
lies.

I, Enemy Combatant...

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:45 pm

Guest

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:28:22 -0700 (PDT), agent86 at (no spam) justicemail.com
wrote:

Quote:

Let's pick out just a few of Prezbyter's more blatant lies:

You have a wonderful working knowledge of the Neocon/Masonic 9-11 FLIM
FLAM talking points. I am very impressed.

I would like to recommend that your boss, Dick Cheney, gives you a pay
raise and a promotion.

I would recommend a Christmas bonus too, but I know you're a Jew.

Keep up the good work:-)

I, Enemy Combatant...

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:20 pm

Guest

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:32:53 -0700 (PDT), agent86 at (no spam) justicemail.com
wrote:

Quote:

Nice that you consider FACTS as merely "talking points". BTW, what
facts did you present?

FACT:
agent86 at (no spam) justicemail.com is a Jew and a paid government shill.

Quote:

Perhaps you would consider discontinuing spreading of lies.

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.

www.scholarsfor911truth.org

www.patriotsquestion911.com

www.journalof911studies.com

www.911truth.org

www.physics911.net

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk

www.911citizenswatch.org

www.911research.com

www.911inquiry.org

www.globaloutlook.ca

www.unitedfortruth.org

www.911proof.com

www.thepentacon.com

www.911links.org

www.whodidit.org

www.hugequestions.com

www911awakening.com

www.infowars.com

www.theultimateconspiracy.com

www.stoplying.ca

www.letsroll911.org

www.pilotsfor911truth.org

www.rense.com

www.911review.com

www.ae911truth.org (architects and engineers)

www.americanfreepress.net

www.serendipity.li

www.911truthradio.com

www.waynemadsenreport.com

www.whatreallyhappened.com

www.propagandamatrix.com

www.wtc7.net

www.911courage.org

U.S. directory of 9/11 Truth communities
http://www.911truthgroups.org/SharedResources/USDirectoryof911CommunityWebsites/tabid/995/Default.aspx

International directory of 9/11 websites
http://www.911truthgroups.org/SharedResources/EuropeanDirectoryof911CommunityWebsites/tabid/1084/Default.aspx

....

"Truth always lags behind, limping along on the arm of Time."
-- Baltasar Gracián

"Time wounds all heels."
--Jane Ace

...

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:29 am

Guest

On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, "I, Enemy Combatant" <antisem... at (no spam) battlefield.usa>
wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:32:53 -0700 (PDT), agen... at (no spam) justicemail.com
wrote:

Nice that you consider FACTS as merely "talking points". BTW, what
facts did you present?

FACT:
agen... at (no spam) justicemail.com is a Jew and a paid government shill.

And you just amply demonstrate that you haven't a clue. You wouldn't
know a fact if it bit you on the butt.

Quote:

Perhaps you would consider discontinuing spreading of lies.

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.

No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it is still a lie, sport.

Iarnrod...

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:25 am

Guest

On Oct 17, 7:18 am, "I, Enemy Combatant" <antisem... at (no spam) battlefield.usa>
wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT), agen... at (no spam) justicemail.com
wrote:

No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it is still a lie, sport.

No lie you can invent
Hurts like the truth told
With bad intent.

--Anonymous

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To me, 9/11 will always be the day the Pentagon attacked its own evil
self.

Have you ever grabbed a belligerent child by the wrists and made him
punch his own face until he promised to stop fighting?

Well, that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about a post-it note, just a simple little post-it note.

A post-it note that said: "HANDS OFF - GREEN CARD"

A post-it note that shocked the world and changed history.

That famous post-it note, ...what color was it?

Was it chickenshit yellow, like a neo-con draft-dodger?

Or was it terror alert color-code red, like Cheney's face
after he shot his friend?

Neither. It was snow-white, as in "we surrender."

The Pentagon raised the white flag of surrender
in the form of a white post-it note.

A post-it note, posted for a neo-Pearl Harbor, for a neo-American
century, for neo-cons, neo-nazis, and neo-oil-billionaires.

The post-it note that brought down the WTC:http://summeroftruth.org/atta2..html

Are you on drugs or just stupid?

I, Enemy Combatant...

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:18 am

Guest

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT), agent86 at (no spam) justicemail.com
wrote:

Quote:

No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it is still a lie, sport.

No lie you can invent
Hurts like the truth told
With bad intent.

--Anonymous

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To me, 9/11 will always be the day the Pentagon attacked its own evil
self.

Have you ever grabbed a belligerent child by the wrists and made him
punch his own face until he promised to stop fighting?

Well, that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about a post-it note, just a simple little post-it note.

A post-it note that said: "HANDS OFF - GREEN CARD"

A post-it note that shocked the world and changed history.

That famous post-it note, ...what color was it?

Was it chickenshit yellow, like a neo-con draft-dodger?

Or was it terror alert color-code red, like Cheney's face
after he shot his friend?

Neither. It was snow-white, as in "we surrender."

The Pentagon raised the white flag of surrender
in the form of a white post-it note.

A post-it note, posted for a neo-Pearl Harbor, for a neo-American
century, for neo-cons, neo-nazis, and neo-oil-billionaires.

The post-it note that brought down the WTC:
http://summeroftruth.org/atta2.html

======Sneaky Attack but not a Sneak Attack========

"A Date Which Will Live in Infamy": FDR Asks for a Declaration of War
http://www.historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5166/

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a
date which will live in infamy -- the United States of American was
suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the
Empire of Japan."

An "Intelligence Failure" Which Will Live in Infamy (until 9/11/01):

The McCollum Memo: The Smoking Gun of Pearl Harbor
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/

On October 7, 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the
Office of Naval Intelligence submitted a memo to Navy Captains Walter
Anderson and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the
following scans). Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President
Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors.

The memo, scanned below, detailed an 8 step plan to provoke Japan
into attacking the United States. President Roosevelt, over the course
of 1941, implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the
McCollum memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked. The
public was told that it was a complete surprise, an "intelligence
failure", and America entered World War Two.

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

The Old Pearl Harbor vs. The New Pearl Harbor

The Old Pearl Harbor was a ruse perpetuated by the President of the
United States, on the advice of ardent Zionist Bernard Baruch, to
garner support for a war against Germany, which had nothing to do
with Pearl Harbor.

The New Pearl Harbor was a ruse perpetuated by the President of
the United States, on the advice of ardent Zionist Richard Pearl, to
garner support for a war against Iraq, which had nothing to do with
9/11.

(Salvadorwriter wrote:)
....This would not be the first time such a treacherous action
occurred in the United States. The Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor
(Dec. 7, 1941) has been shown by historians to be a ruse perpetrated
by President Roosevelt to get America into the European war against
Nazi Germany.

Author Robert B. Stinnett built a powerful case in his book, Day of
Deceit, that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the attack which
killed 2,400 military persons and wounded 1,100 more and allowed it
to happen, even encouraged it. Given that Roosevelt's top adviser,
Bernard Baruch, was an ardent Zionist, Stinnett's explanation seems
highly plausible.

In 1999, the US Senate voted to exonerate Hawaii commanders Admiral
Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short for lack of
preparedness after the Pentagon declared that blame should be
"broadly shared."(7) Prior to Stinnett's work, researchers
concluded that the US Government did not crack Japanese military
codes before December 7, 1941; however, Stinnett provided numerous
cables of decryptions to refute that claim. He also proved that a
Japanese spy in Hawaii had transmitted information including a map
of the bombing target beginning on August 21, 1941, and that
American intelligence knew about it. In a word, Stinnett proved how
Roosevelt allowed the attack to occur...

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

Forget that Mossad agents had their cameras aimed at the WTC on 9/11.

The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Forget that the Pentagon protected Mohammed Atta for over a year.

ABLE DANGER ARCHIVE
http://summeroftruth.org/atta2.html

Forget that Zionists in the government stopped flying commercial
airlines.

Ashcroft Flying High
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

Forget that United Airline insider trading led directly to the CIA.

(One of a series of stories on CIA foreknowledge of the WTC attacks.)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html

Forget that famous warning that was ignored, then hidden.

August 6, 2001: Bush Administration Warned 'Bin Laden Determined to
Attack Inside the United States'
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44925

Forget all that and just concentrate on the Brown-Rice
affection-connection ...

.... and ...... have ..... a ..... nice ..... war.

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

Did Condi Have Foreknowledge Of 911 And Warn SF's Brown?
http://www.rense.com/general46/warn.html
Commentary
By Danny Goldberg
dgoldb... at (no spam) emailaccount.com
Tel Aviv, Israel
12-24-03

Dear Mr. Rense,

There are many rumours here in Israel that Condoleeza Rice warned San
Francisco Mayor Willie Brown about not flying on 911. The Mayor DID
suddenly cancel a previously-booked flight on that day. I personally
heard it from a source which I considered highly reliable. If its
true, it means that Ms. Rice had foreknowledge of the 911 attack. I
will appreciate if you would elaborate on your wonderful radio talk
show with your guests. BTW, thank you for the wonderful improvements
in your audio service, you are one of very few who provide FREE
audio, we deeply appreciate it. You are a major source of RELIABLE
information for us Israelis.

Can Americans force the San Francisco's Mayor to testify? Will
Americans continue to be marched to the slaughter without getting to
the bottom of the truth? With your untrustworthy White House, this is
a golden opportunity for Americans to find the truth and get rid of
your manipulative leadership!

How long will Americans continue to be gullible? How long will
Americans agree to be held by the world as the most despised people
on earth? When will Americans wake up? America today is an
embarrassment to your founding fathers !!!

Now, when most of the world maintain that the pentagon is involved or
behind the 911 attacks, and NOT bin-Laden, we need a change of
leadership in America, and we need to clean up American military,
too, otherwise we are at the end of our civilization!

I am enclosing two related articles which I found on Google.

Yours,
Danny Goldberg
dgoldb... at (no spam) emailaccount.com
Tel Aviv
Israel

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/8-12-03/discussion.cgi.23.html

a... at (no spam) apfn.org>
Condoleeza Rice Warned Willie Brown Not To Fly On 911
Tue Aug 12 15:08:01 2003
64.140.158.143

Condoleeza Rice Warned Willie Brown Not To Fly On 9-11

By Brasscheck
Monday August 11, 2003 at 02:42 PM
http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/1634286.php

Bush administration foreknowledge of 9-11 hijackings confirmed by
Condoleezza Rice herself.

August 10, 2003

Grasping a straws and closing a loop

"Condoleezza Rice, the most senior black woman in the Bush
administration, has levelled a charge of racism against critics of
the US drive to bring Western freedoms to the Middle East."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2FC34B85

That's the grasping at straws part.

But wait. There's more.

Did this former Chevron (San Francisco) employee got this new
rhetorical tactic from San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, who has
managed to turn every scandal there into an issue of race?

SF Election fraud? White people don't want blacks to have an
expensive, disruptive, mafia owned football stadium in their
overtaxed, under served neighborhood.

Off duty cops robbing and beating citizens? White people who complain
don't want a black police chief to succeed.

Rice has a lot of deep official SF connections besides Chevron:
Charles Schwab, San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors,
Transamerica Corporation, KQED.

Trivia question: What mayor of a major west coast city claimed just
hours after 9-11 that he'd been warned not to fly the week of 9-11 by
what he described as his 'airport security.' None other than Willie
Brown!

Details:
http://propagandamatrix.com/willie_brown_got_low_key_early_warning.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/200...

Think about it. Where else on earth would Brown get the message not
to fly on a particular day? The airport says there was no advisory in
place.

Note that when asked, Brown clammed up as to the source. Why?

Searching...

Turns out my hunch ain't a news flash. Just the sussing out of a
significant, but very obscure piece of 9-11 trivia.

On May 17, 2002, Pacifica Radio reported that Rice was the source of
the call to Brown.

See side bar: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Bush_knew2.html

So, in case you missed it:

THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
CONDOLEEZZA RICE CALLED A FRIEND THE DAY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11TH AND
TOLD HIM TO STAY OUT OF THE AIR THAT WEEK

Got that?

San Francisco historians take note. The city elite found yet another
way to be involved first hand in the reaming of the Republic.

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/08/1954.shtml

WILLIE BROWN, YOU TALK TOO MUCH.

I argue that San Francisco mayor Willie Brown had foreknowledge of
911 but criminally failed to alert Americans.

A T.I.P. (Text In Progress) By Adrian More

Un-dear San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown:

On the night of Monday, September 10, 2001, you got an interesting
call.

"A full eight hours" before the 911 terror attacks, your "airport
security" gave you a buzz advising you "that Americans should be
cautious about their air travel".

Quite a call, indeed? Especially since you were booked to fly to New
York the next day.

Now, I didn?t know you had "your" own airport security at San
Francisco International, Willie.

I thought airport security was for everyone.

Instead, "your" airport security alerted only you. And you, the San
Francisco mayor, did not pass on the alert to anyone else.

"Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor
would say only that it came from ?my security people at the
airport?".

Slight nuance here. It?s not ?your airport security? anymore, but
?your security people at the airport?.

So the mystery is not 'where' the call came from - it came from the
airport. And we know when it came late Monday night, Sept.10, 2001.

But what you didn't tell us, Willie, is the Name of the person who
alerted you.

Because that bastard had foreknowledge of 911.

And he/she passed that criminal foreknowledge (which amounts to
complicity, because he didn't alert all Americans, thus sending the
passenger and crews of the 4 planes to the slaughter) on to you,
mayor Brown.

And you - a public figure, with easy, fast mass media access - kept
that foreknowledge of 911 to yourself, thus becoming another
accessory before the fact along with the faceless coward who had
called you.

Yeah, you tried (in vain) to downplay the episode - probably after
realizing you'd made a huge mistake in reporting it at all.

You said the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion".

Even assuming that this were true, ITS CONTENTS were alarming in the
extreme: "Americans should be cautious about their air travel" can
only mean one thing: stay home because something?s gonna happen.

Again your evasive, vain downplaying: "It was not an abnormal call.
I?m always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they
always alert me when I ought to be careful."

But that one call was NOT about flight delays. It was not about
'being careful'.

That one special call was about being "cautious about air travel" ?
that is, a warning to stay put - not fly on 911.

And it warned "Americans". Except: 99,9% of Americans were NOT
warned.

But YOU (and the bastard who called you) were, Willie.

You could - OUGHT TO have called your mass media whores immediately:
you had "a full 8 hours" and the public power to warn ALL AMERICANS
to be cautious. You didn't. Your negligence was criminal.

You ought to be in jail for dereliction of duty, Mayor Brown.

You ought to be held, at the very least, as a material witness to
911.

YOU OUGHT TO BE FORCED, IF THIS WERE A REAL DEMOCRACY, TO TESTIFY
UNDER OATH AND ON PRIME TIME LIVE CNN AS TO:

- WHO CALLED THAT NIGHT: THE NAME!

- WHO THE HELL ARE "YOUR SECURITY PEOPLE AT THE AIRPORT": THE NAMES!

According to my source nr 2 (see bottom), the source on which the
call was based was a state department memo issued on Sept.7 ? but that
memo "addressed concerns for Americans overseas and made no mention of
any possible attack on U.S. soil".

And willie you were booked to fly to New York not overseas.

So why did this anonymous "airport security" warn you at all?

But it's never too late to repent and own up to one's crimes - Willie
Brown, you talked too much.

- Adrian More
First version finished on July 25, 2002.

Sources:
1. San Francisco Chronicle; Wed, Sept.12, 2001, p.A-17: ?Willie Brown
got low-key early warning about air travel?, by Phillip Matier,
Andrew
Ross, online:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/200...

2. San Francisco Chronicle, Sept.14, 2001: ?State Department memo
warned of terrorist threat?, by Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross, online:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/200...

No rights reserved. This material MAY and OUGHT be published,
broadcast, rewritten and redistributed, as long as Adrian More is
credited as author.

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap
The Center for American Progress

Friday 26 March 2004
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/032804A.shtml
A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national
security officials has a severe problem with the truth.

Pre-9/11 Intelligence

CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would
try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a
missile."; National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a
one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was
capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could
include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the
Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using
airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the
Administration from new revelations that the President had been
explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August
2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of
his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer."
[Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by
President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the
CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not
recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the
briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we
were at battle stations."; National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give
terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice
Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic
Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of
the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun
violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's
predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging
threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush
Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to
monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington
Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused
on this before 9/11."; National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism
task force, which was created in May, never convened one single
meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense
of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post,
1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to
attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other
targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived."; National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that
came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military
plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick:
"Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options
to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think
that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission
testimony, 3/24/04]

Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-
fold" before 9/11.; National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice,
3/24/04

FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush
budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million
for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts
and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the
program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek
noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million
from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times,
2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

Richard Clarke's Concerns

CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the
administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the
wrong direction and he chose not to."; National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked
"urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending
al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says
"principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the
threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS
60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." ;
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000
strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new
national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice."; 9/11 Commission staff
report, 3/24/04

Response to 9/11

CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11."
– National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush
White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for
counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget
document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism
efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he
resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and
immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that
meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president
thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." ;
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks
on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a
2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the
Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq."
This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that
five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq."
[Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]

Iraq and WMD

CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was
without weapons of mass destruction."; National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04

FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay
"resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned
stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush
Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD
threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in
and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of
a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."; National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President
repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11?
President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the
Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized
force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03
that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between
Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a
connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]

...

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:46 am

Guest

On Oct 17, 9:18 am, "I, Enemy Combatant" <antisem... at (no spam) battlefield.usa>
wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT), agen... at (no spam) justicemail.com
wrote:

No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it is still a lie, sport.

And quoting conspiracy wacko websites as your sources doesn't make the
lies into truth.

slika...

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:54 am

Guest

<agent86 at (no spam) justicemail.com> wrote in message
news:8de6f4a7-a826-41a9-a11c-cafe871d19e7 at (no spam) x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 11:58 am, "I, Enemy Combatant" <antisem... at (no spam) battlefield.usa>
wrote:

Let's pick out just a few of Prezbyter's more blatant lies:

Quote:

Prezbyter doesn't understand the difference between static load and
dynamic load.
l

Quote:

structurally sound as evidenced by their response to the impacts) at
virtual free fall speeds;

Quote:

for its bigger neighbors, also at free fall speed;

Again, it didn't happen that way. WTC7 was severely damaged by
material falling from the collapse of tower 1 and burned internally
for most of the day on 9/11.

Quote:

the all but impossible 330 degree turn of flight 77

What's so impossible about a 330 degree descending turn? A student
pilot learns to do 360 degree turns around a point within a few hours
of beginning instruction.

Quote:

into the undefended Pentagon,

Quote:

bypassing the biological targets of value in direct line of flight for
the mainly civilian accountants in the impacted section

If one examines photographs of the Pentagon, the side that was struck
is the only side that has nothing in front of it. The other four
sides have structures located next to the Pentagon.

Quote:

(probably
trying to find the 2 trillion that Rummy announced on 9/10 had gone
missing).

Which isn't what was announced at all.

Quote:

The 19 hijackers were anything but "semi-literate cave dwellers".
They were university trained, intelligent individuals.

Quote:

and VP Cheney ordered a stand down of the
forces which would normally defend the Pentagon.

No, he didn't. See above.

Quote:

Those symbols of American prosperity were appropriately losing money
and facing a billion dollar asbestos removal fee.

Quote:

Fortunate then for
Larry Silverstein who took out a 99 year lease in July that year and
insured those symbols (full of people) for billions in case of
terrorist attacks,

Gosh, do you think that might have had something to do with an event
that occurred in 1993?

Quote:

that they attacked before he started clean up. He
not only saved a cool billion but is reported to have collected
upwards of $7 billion on the insurance policies.

...

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:48 pm

Guest

On Oct 19, 5:54 am, "slika" <sl... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

agen... at (no spam) justicemail.com> wrote in message

<snip>

Quote:

agent86 is still spreadin misinfo and lies, I see.

And yet you can't refute a single piece of that "misinfo and lies",
can you? You certainly didn't try.

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:47 am Politics Forum Index