Herb White

Thanks Trent. I am inclined to agree with you - however, most of the experts I contacted about this believe this is simply wind in the bushes. I don't. The only confimation I ever received was tenuous at best. I once stumbled upon someone who claimed to have witnessed a film taken from perhaps this location - based upon the description provided [TSBD doorway in background, etc] - that's all I managed to get. I didn't see the film, and I have no way of knowing if this person was credible. That's how it goes. Here's a crop - thanks to Robin Unger - this was one of his high quality frames. I interpolated it, cropped this section, and slightly tweaked it. Now I know what the wind looks like anyway. - lee LOL! Thanks for sharing what the wind looks like! Although I am sure there is some issue involving physics, line of sight, or a previously unknown presence of a large fan in this area, the "it's just the wind" opinion is somewhat weak in my eyes. The reason for this is that this wind seems to be blowing east to west, at the same speed of the limo. Now, with just a quick study of the video, that seems to be the only place that the wind is blowing in that direction. The first thing I looked for was truly noticeable movement in clothing or hair by people in the crowd, but this is difficult to see, even if it is there. No luck. The next reference I used was the flags on the front of the limo, and using this could be deceiving, because they will inevitably move with the movement of the limo. However, it appears possible that even with that movement, the flags do seem to be waving a little to the north side of Elm. Inconclusive, but it appears that way to me. The next reference is the lady next to the Stemmons sign on the North side of Elm. She has that white handkerchief on her head which is definitely appearing to be blown in a North to Northwest direction. Although neither of these is conclusive, it does give at least a possible direction of the wind at that time. However, the East to West direction of the wind in that area that I spoke of would seem to be obstructed by that wall immediately behind and the wall to the east of "the shooter" and his friend "the wind". I'm not ready to buy the "it's just the wind" theory yet. Does the figure appear to be wearing a (motorcycle type)helmet Lee?

As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet. Oy Never have so many been confused by so few..... Actually: Never have so many fallen for and believed so much BS without some form of factual evidence to support it. Especially when ALL of the factual evidence contradicts such an assinine claim. Yes, it woud be so much easier to believe you and Mike Williams self important bloviating, than my lieing eyes. Far better to "bloviate" than to assume that I was born with some mystical ability to look at even a good photograph and thereafter decipher anything factual from it. Us pore ole "bloviating" country boys are therefore destined to base our determinations on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and actual physical evidence. My God!---------Is not that how the true criminal investigators actually do it also????????? Except of course those on the TV programs who utilize all of those who are born with great mystical abilities. Tom P.S. It is not your eyes that are lieing to you. It is merely a severely misguided portion of your cerebral capacity that has you convined that you have "crystal ball" abilities. And by the way, it's a bit strange to lecture on cerebral capacity, when a "pore" ol country boy can't spell poor.

As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet. Oy Never have so many been confused by so few..... Actually: Never have so many fallen for and believed so much BS without some form of factual evidence to support it. Especially when ALL of the factual evidence contradicts such an assinine claim. Yes, it woud be so much easier to believe you and Mike Williams self important bloviating, than my lieing eyes. Far better to "bloviate" than to assume that I was born with some mystical ability to look at even a good photograph and thereafter decipher anything factual from it. Us pore ole "bloviating" country boys are therefore destined to base our determinations on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and actual physical evidence. My God!---------Is not that how the true criminal investigators actually do it also????????? Except of course those on the TV programs who utilize all of those who are born with great mystical abilities. Tom P.S. It is not your eyes that are lieing to you. It is merely a severely misguided portion of your cerebral capacity that has you convined that you have "crystal ball" abilities. The list of things that have been determined by looking at good photographs is just about endless. No mystical ability required...just an open mind. No problem using forensics, ballistics etc., but when they are possibly tainted, or dozens of differing views on them are out there, from many differing sources, some good some dubious, I have my doubts yours have any more validity. Oh, I guess a whiz bang criminal investigator like yourself could show me his badge and impress me, but only if it didn't come out of a cereal box. And, unlike many others, I never said I was convinced about anything if you read my original statement.

As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet. Oy Never have so many been confused by so few..... Actually: Never have so many fallen for and believed so much BS without some form of factual evidence to support it. Especially when ALL of the factual evidence contradicts such an assinine claim. Yes, it woud be so much easier to believe you and Mike Williams self important bloviating, than my lieing eyes.

As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet.

The statements of Gordon Arnold preceding the release of the images of Badgeman in Moorman.

While far from being a firearms expert I do have enough experience firing weapons with friends to know that simultaneous shots, or nearly so, can be mistaken for one shot easily. When one takes into consideration the acoustics of Dealey Plaza, the various locations of witnesses, the real possibility of spotters and radio controlled volleys and sound suppressors the number of shots is very difficult to determine imo. Herb, With all due respect silencers are really a bunch of hooey. Even with today's technology suppressors on high powered rifles still emit sound over 100dB. In an area the size of DP there is hardly a need for radio volleys etc. A well laid plan is a single shooter, well trained and armed. We have no evidence of any of that. Mike Mike, I only mentioned silencers because they have been brought up in the past. I do not believe they would have been employed for various reasons, but wouldn't rule them out. Some have postulated pistols were involved, which considering the distances from certain points is a possibility I assume. And they can be more effectively silenced. The other points I raised are what makes the number of shots unanswerable in my opinion. There is some evidence that supports teamwork. If a well laid plan is a single shooter, well trained and armed then it makes sense to me thattwo or more of the same would incresae the odds of successs. If the planning is done professionally, then I wouldn't think the chances of being caught would increase significantly. The quote, and I may be paraprhasing "if you set out to kill the king, you better make damn sure you're successful" always rang true for me if it was a group of powerful conspirators, which I believe. Herb, The amount of skill to make a pistol shot like this is far above the skill one would need with a rifle. It is an error to believe that pistols are more effectively suppressed. This comes from all the silencers we see in movies and in military history, they are, almost exclusively .22 caliber. With an HPR the increase in caliber also makes an increase in noise with a silencer. If we are to consider that a .308 is a significant rifle, then we have to consider that a .380 pistol is not. Even though the pistol is larger caliber. Mike, Come on. You're swatting at flies and ignoring the elephants. I only said pistols were a possibility. but a 22 can be very lethal and accurate depending on the bullet and skill of the shooter. And I assume one would make certain of that if looking for marksmen. Without going into detail here one can google silenced weapons of the 1960's and find all the information one wishes by various experts. Bottomline....silencers can't be ruled out. My main points were the possiblity of volleys, the variable acoustics of DP and the location of the witnesses.

While far from being a firearms expert I do have enough experience firing weapons with friends to know that simultaneous shots, or nearly so, can be mistaken for one shot easily. When one takes into consideration the acoustics of Dealey Plaza, the various locations of witnesses, the real possibility of spotters and radio controlled volleys and sound suppressors the number of shots is very difficult to determine imo. Herb, With all due respect silencers are really a bunch of hooey. Even with today's technology suppressors on high powered rifles still emit sound over 100dB. In an area the size of DP there is hardly a need for radio volleys etc. A well laid plan is a single shooter, well trained and armed. We have no evidence of any of that. Mike Mike, I only mentioned silencers because they have been brought up in the past. I do not believe they would have been employed for various reasons, but wouldn't rule them out. Some have postulated pistols were involved, which considering the distances from certain points is a possibility I assume. And they can be more effectively silenced. The other points I raised are what makes the number of shots unanswerable in my opinion. There is some evidence that supports teamwork. If a well laid plan is a single shooter, well trained and armed then it makes sense to me thattwo or more of the same would incresae the odds of successs. If the planning is done professionally, then I wouldn't think the chances of being caught would increase significantly. The quote, and I may be paraprhasing "if you set out to kill the king, you better make damn sure you're successful" always rang true for me if it was a group of powerful conspirators, which I believe.

While far from being a firearms expert I do have enough experience firing weapons with friends to know that simultaneous shots, or nearly so, can be mistaken for one shot easily. When one takes into consideration the acoustics of Dealey Plaza, the various locations of witnesses, the real possibility of spotters and radio controlled volleys and sound suppressors the number of shots is very difficult to determine imo.

Thanks for the headsup Bernice, sounds like an interesting read. Wonder why someone would write such a book though, when Mike Williams seems to have the ballistics completely figured out.

I've seen this analysis before and the rebuttals. I'm not convinced of anything, but do tend to go with Arnold due to what I previously stated. Thanks for your time, effort and lack of sarcasm.

Gordon Arnold wasn't there.

Did this guy make his calculations based on BM being at the corner of the retaining wall, or further back behind the picket fence? At one point in this clip Gordon Arnold is quite clear to me and because of the timeline of Arnold's story I still tend to believe he saw what he claimed. Odds are just too long he would appear exactly where he said he was and a policeman without a hat, as he said, would be where he claimed as well.

Thanks Shane, I just ordered your DVD and look forward to seeing it. Are you available for radio interviews? I work at Georgia Public Broadcasting and we are the statewide Public Televison and Radio network Herb

Shane, I recently saw a documentary on the JFK assassination and it had a segment on some new sound evidence regarding a recording only recently uncovered, or re-discovered. Are you familiar with this research? Sorry if this is old news. Herb

The genius of 9/11 was mostly in its conception; once it had been planned it would not have that difficult to carry out. Four months after 9/11 a Florida teenager with minimal flight training was able to steal a Cessna fly it over an air force base and crash it into a building in Tampa. Planes have previously been hijacked by crazy people soaked in flammable liquid or with fake bombs, the “muscle hijackers” were trained in hand to hand combat. Getting a car bomb close enough to an iconic target to do serious damage wouldn’t be so easy as you imagine. It seems that by raising the Florida teenager story, you are undermining your own contention that security in the US is now perfect, and hence the rationale for no additional AQ attacks on US soil. LEN: I’m not into getting involved in semantic battles, increased security is a reasonable explanation for later attacks not occurring, someone (especially a Canadian) praying to a rock isn’t. After the US started x-raying carry on baggage and obliging passengers to go through metal detectors hijackings of scheduled passenger virtually came to a halt in the US. In the few incidents that happened afterwards the perpetrators used non-traditional weapons (bombs, flammable liquids, box cutters, knives etc. Can we assume causality or do you think some one prayed to their pet rock? I don’t know of any cases of potential hijackers being caught by airport security. However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the security measures were put in place but didn’t because it was more difficult. RC-D: Those without a predisposition might also reasonably assume that no such incidents have taken place because no such attempts were made. Had any such attempts been made, would DHS, et al, not rightly trumpet such apprehensions far and wide as proof that their increased security precautions were paying great dividens in maintaining public safety? That you've seen no such report, I submit, is proof there have been no such attempts. But, again, I've never held that a secondary attack had to be against aircraft. I just find it incredible that no such attack of any kind has been perpetrated. My last sentence came out convoluted but you should have been able to make out my point. It should have read: “However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the new security measures were put in place didn’t because it became more difficult”. I.e. increased security has a deterrent effect. I don’t think anyone can point out a hijacking that was prevented by metal detectors and x-ray machines at airports but the steep decline of such incidents after they were put into use is strongly suggestive they prevented such attacks. That may or may not explain an absence of attacks using airplanes; it provides no basis to believe that security is now so fool-proof as to make all attacks against any targets impossible. Your fallback position seems to be that AQ is only interested in the targets that you would have them prefer. A most peculiar method of prosecuting a war against the Great Satan, don't you think? From post 165 LEN: Strawman I didn’t use the incompetence theory regarding the memo and only used it as a secondary possibility forr the 1st WTC attack. RC-D: Well, of course. Otherwise, you might actually have to confront the recurring pattern of curious negligence, incompetence or [feel free to use your own terminology] to rationalize how prior warnings are ignored, and after the fact, denied ever being made or received. Unfortunately for those doing the denying, those warnings are, after all, demonstrable, as was the case when Condi Rice said it was unthinkable that AQ would use airplanes to attack the US, only to have Richard Ben Veniste produce precisely such a document, provided to the President more than a month before the attacks, which document warned of precisely such an event. That this disconnect doesn't trouble you may not surprise those who read your output here, but some of us are troubled by such disclosures, for it illustrates that criminal negligence, at best, was committed by the man whose central reason for being, by his own proclamation, is keeping the US secure. I don’t know if incompetence is the correct charge, of course with hindsight it’s easy to say what should have been done. The Bush administration did show a distinct disinterest in terrorism probably because they had other priories [iraq and the rest of the axis of evil, raping the economy etc] some of the errors took place during the Clinton administration if it was a conspiracy it was a very complex one. Just as the US military showed a "distinct disinterest" in intercepting hijacked planes even after it was apparent they had been hijacked and would be used as weapons. Just as the Bush administration showed a "distinct disinterest" in launching an investigation into what transpired on that day, and a year later relented only because a failure to do so was inexplicable to even Bush's staunchest supporters. Just as those who wish to embrace the easiest answers of that Commission's Report still display a "distinct disinterest" in tackling the multiple failures, errors and omissions contained in that Report. "Distinct disinterest" seems rather pervasive among some when dealing with this topic. One wonders why that might be. Surely it cannot be that those in a position of power have reason to fear a comprehensive official investigation and the revelations that might ensue? Of course not; that's just more groundless "conspiracy theory," isn't it? For a shockingly revealing overview of just how poorly this event was investigated, one might benefit from reading an interview with Lee Hamilton, conducted by a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation talking head: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html - In the 30’s the French failed to learn the lesson of the previous war and placed fortification only along their boarder with Germany but in 1940 just as the had done in WWI the Germans attacked through the low countries. - If I’m not mistaken Chamberlain really seemed to believe Hitler would keep his word. - Stalin refused to believe intelligence report Germany was going to attack in 1941 - Hitler refuse to believe the allies were going to land at Normandy (rather than other landing points) - In 1973 the Israelis missed signs of an impending Arab attack Were the above “inside jobs” I have never suggested that imcompetence doesn't exist, or that it cannot explain some things. I have never suggested that nobody in world history has ever been wrong and lived to regret it. But if you are arguing that imcompetence and error are the only explanations that can rationalize what transpired in regard to Nine-One-One, I can only point out that your wilful refusal to consider other alternatives is matched only by your credulity in accepting what you've been told by a Commander In Chief who has been wrong about just about everything he's ever said. You may find his explanations credible, which is your right, but surely you can understand why not everyone is quite so sanguine about these things as you seem to be? One should also point out that in none of the above-cited cases is it demonstrable that Chamberlain, Stalin, Hitler or Israel, or their courtiers, gained any personal, political or corporate profit as a result of their errors. To the contrary, these errors came at a grave cost to those who made them. The same cannot be said for Bush and his courtiers. LEN: The “new Pearl Harbor” was only tied to one goal, introducing new weapons systems namely “Global missile defenses”, “Control of space and cyberspace” and “Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces” (i.e. more modern conventional weapons) (pg. 63). Unless you cite credible evidence that after 9/11 such new weapons were introduced at a faster rate than could have been expected if the attacks hadn’t occurred, you’ve lost your case. Keep in mind that we would have expected defense spending to go up during a neo-con Republican administration anyway and many of the PNAC people were in positions to implement their goals under the puppet like Bush. See also if you can dig up any references in that paper to invading or overthrowing the governments of any governments especially in that region. The "happy coincidence" exists only in the minds of truthers because there is no evidence the attacks help implement any of the goals stated in the paper especially those in the “new Pearl Harbor chapter” RC-D: I take it that "truther" is a new pejorative term, much like "conspiracy buff," employed by those who cannot refute the message and are thus reduced to mocking the messenger? No “truther” is the preferred term for most people who are part of the “truth movement” to describe themselves. Is taking mock offense an excuse for not addressing my points? I mocked no one and replied to your point. As already stated elsewhere in this thread, I read the document in precisely the way Ron Ecker has already interpreted. You are free to disagree, but it is not as though this point hasn't already been addressed. Post 166 I edited for brevity the posts were getting too long and confusing as it is. I asked for a reference for your claim that members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the US without being questioned by the FBI days after 9/11. You have so far fail to produce one, no amount of smoke will hide that. Since I've never stated otherwise, I am unsure what you expect to be provided. I suggested that Bush's solicitude toward the Bin Ladens was inexplicable, irrespective of when they were allowed to leave [assuming the 911 Commission is correct on this point, which is an unsafe assumption.] Had the extended family of Hirohito been residing in the US at the time of the attack upon Pearl Harbor, would Roosevelt have granted them safe passage back to Japan? One cannot know with certainty, but it surely seems rather odd. Particularly given the long-standing business and political ties between the Bushes and Bin Ladens. Had Roosevelt enjoyed a convivial and profitable relationship with the Hirohito family before and after Pearl Harbor, and allowed them egress from the US soon after Pearl Harbor, would this not have raised questions about Roosevelt's true allegiances? It should have done, just as these more recent events are not just fair game for questioning, but a requirement incumbent upon anyone truly interested in what transpired. RC-D: You place great faith in the 9/11 Report, enough to cite its findings as contained on 911.myths.com. I posted the Hopsicker material to demstrate that while US airspace was closed, Saudis - less important to Bush than the Bin Ladens - received preferential treatment, attributed [by some of those involved in the flight] to the White House. FAA denied it, FBI denied it, the White House denied it, yet the Commission accepted it as a fact, and then called it benign. That still isn’t evidence in support of your original claim 1) You provided the Commission's assurance that there was nothing unusual about allowing the Bin Ladens to leave the country, despite the fact that all interested parties - White House, FBI, FAA, et al - had repeatedly lied about that event. 2) In order to demonstrate just how invalid the Commission's conclusions could be, I provided chapter and verse on a virtually identical event in which all interested parties - the White House, FBI, FAA, et al - likewise lied, only to have the Commission compound the lie by declaring it benign, which we know to be false. 3) You have apparently decided that the two are in no way similar and hence dismissed it as irrelevant. I trust that the parallels between the two events, which I have demonstrated, are not likewise lost upon others here. LEN: I haven’t flown out of Canada since I was a teenager decades ago but when flying out of the US even post 9/11 there is no ID by security officials. Names and ID’s only checked by airline employees at check-in and boarding for someone with an e-ticket and no checked bags not even the former. Are you saying that the Canadians would not have instructed the airlines to not allow anyone named bin-Laden fly overseas? RC-D: Unsure about the double negative, but... Given the ID of OBL by the US by that time, it is entirely possible. Certainly, we've detained a half dozen 'suspects' via the use of "security certificates," some for years in solitary confinement, without charge, without trail, without conviction. We have collaborated with the US in the forced and illegal deportation of Canadian citizens to Middle Eastern countries where they were held, tortured and spurned by the Canadian consular officials responsible for their well being in those countries. I realize when people think of Canada, it is hard to conjure the image of an overly zealous and efficient security apparatus, but we do have one. And ours isn't always perfect, but it usually errs on the side of proactive, unConstitutional behaviour, more often than not. You seem to have taken offense at a sentence on the 911myths page based on your misreading. I doubt the US would have had any legal basis for preventing the bin Ladens from leaving the US once airspace was open unless they had evidence against them. Canada would have had even less basis for holding them. Being detained for simply being a relative of someone suspected of committed a crime is something I doubt even the neo-cons would dream of seriously proposing. I can assure you that the Canadian goverment would have been particularly proactive in this regard. Do recall that US authorities initially announced that some of the 911 hijackers had snuck into the US from Canada [completely false], and intimated that such would have never happened were Canadian authorities not so lax [also false, for it is the responsiblility of US Customs to prevent the entry of such persons, not the responsibility of Canada Customs to prevent the exit of same.] Do you really think that after having been falsely branded as lax on terrorism [a recurring false charge against Canada, for those who care], Canadian authorities would have allowed the escape of anyone named Bin Laden, after OBL had been identified as the 911 culprit, with "no questions asked?" If so, I can assure you otherwise, and have already illustrated the wholly illegal lengths to which Canada has already gone in that regard. Those who think Canada is 'soft' on terrorism invoke little more than the South Park hypothesis: "Blame Canada." LEN: To be quite frank it sounds to me like you are retroactively changing your claim which was that “US forces at Tora Bora [were] ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?” Firing upon (which they did do) and attacking themselves (which they didn’t) are very different things. Actually what Berstein says he wanted was for US troops to block escape routes, presumably even he wanted Afghans to do in and “do the dirty work”. RC-D: Bernstein was the man on the ground spearheading the get-OBL effort. He was chosen for a reason. When he called for air power, he got it. When he had sufficient reason to believe that OBL had been located, based on information that he - the guy in charge - found credible, he called for the US military to provide the ground troops necessary to be certain that OBL was killed or captured. Suddenly, according to you, the military began to question the judgment of the man selected to spearhead the get-OBL asset. You seem to think that this can be rationally explained. I see only irrational, contradictory alibis provided for why the US failed to go after its quarry during its single- best [known] opportunity. He had always gotten what he wanted from Frank? Does that include ground troops in difficult terrain? Can you back that up? Bombing is an entirely different matter, the risk of casualties is much reduced. Do you have any evidence the decision went any higher than Franks who was the US’s military commander in Afghanistan? US ground troops were only sparingly used there almost all the fighting was done by Afghans. Again, I find it troubling that the single greatest opportunity, in the extant record, to kill or capture OBL was foregone. You do not, as is your right. Forum members can discern for themselves which they find more persuasive. LEN: Wow you sound like a true neo-con ‘chicken hawk’ armchair warrior! I imagine that you, like I, have no military experience. From the comfort of your bedroom (or where ever your computer is) far from any front in Canada as an academic exercise it easy to talk tough like that. I imagine humanitarian concerns aside needlessly putting troops in the line of fire is bad for morale [did the Canadians ever forgive Mountbatten (sp?)?]. I imagine Franks had to consider the following 1) the reliability of the information, don’t forget he didn’t know the linguist 2) the increase in the likelihood of capturing OBL (if indeed he was there) by sending in US troops 3) the potential casualties from sending US troops. Did he make the wrong decision? Was he unfit for command? I don’t think so but I’m not sure because I don’t have enough information and I’m not qualified to make such a judgment, the same I imagine could be said about you. RC-D: Imagine whatever you wish. You have informed us that you have no time in military service. You are on less safe ground to make unsupportable assumptions about the military background of others here. Shall I take you failure to state otherwise as an indication that I was right about your similar lack of experience? I don’t know of any members here who commanded troops during combat, in any case no one else has commented on this issue. Again, this insistence upon credentials is both inconsistent and spurious, because it certainly doesn't preclude you from offering your opinion on the topic, irrespective of your stated lack of experience. Were I to demonstrate my military background, you would say serving in the Canadian forces is not comparable to service in the US military. Were I to say that I had served in UN peacekeeping duties and was responsible for tracking enemy combatants in Bosnia, you would say that the terrain there was not comparable to that of Afghanistan, etc., etc. This is a red herring on your part, designed merely to deny others a right to state their opinion, while allowing you to state yours. [by the way, although my avatar photo is small and hard to discern, it does depict me in Canadian military uniform, from which you are free to draw whatever inferences you choose. It is as irrelevant as insisting that only professional assassins should be allowed to post their thoughts on the Kennedy assassination.] As for being a 'true neo-con chicken hawk,' it has always been my feeling that when troops are placed in harm's way, it should be for a legitimate purpose, the achievement of which might make the loss of those lives worthwhile. It has always been my feeling that they are to be used solely as a last resort, and that when they are sent in, they are given all the tools and latitude to complete their task, with the least risk to them that is humanly possible to achieve. I agree What I see here is a group of men dropped into enemy terrain, and when they located their target, their judgement was suddenly found worthy of questioning. When they found the needle in the haystack, there was suddenly diminished interest in capturing the needle. Most odd You say this was sudden but haven’t produce evidence of what happened earlier. You think it “odd” but you don’t have any expertise on the subject, Franks certainly did. Unless you can find someone with a comparable level of expertise to question his decision you don’t have much of a case. Once you have done that you need to produce evidence the “sudden change” was due to an order from higher up the chain of command. Your insistence upon having expertise in order to justify an opinion clearly doesn't preclude you from having and stating an opinion, despite your own lack of same. See above. LEN: I never denied that Bush is a corrupt, lying, crazy A-hole but like Palast I can believe that but still think there was no evidence he had foreknowledge of the attacks and think “inside job” theories nonsensical. RC-D: An "inside job" didn't and doesn't require Bush's knowledge. Any "inside job," of whatever description, needs only people powerful enough to orchestrate and manipulate their underlings, the semi-justifiable use of secrecy laws, a sufficient motive, and the audacity to think they could execute it without getting caught. When it comes to evidence of foreknowledge, if such exists in a demonstrable way, those who never seek it are unlikely to find it. Would you include Palast as one of “those who never seek” “evidence of foreknowledge” was he being misleading when he indicated he had? Especially in light of his later comments that he thinks 9/11 conspiracy theories are bogus I would assume that when he said they didn’t find any evidence of Bush having foreknowledge he meant the USG do you think if he had found evidence that for example people in the CIA knew he wouldn’t have said so? Without knowing the lengths to which Palast probed the issue, how can one tell what he has or hasn't sought? This is precisely why it is imperative that such matters be thoroughly and comprehensively probed by an impartial, independent investigative body. That has not been done. Those who think otherwise are welcome to read about the impediments placed in the way of the 911 Commission by those responsible for testifying before it and the various errors and omissions its Report contained. It may be instructive to note that the Commission itself discussed laying criminal charges against some of those who did testify, an example of which can be found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101300.html For just one example of the multiple mysteries never plumbed by the 911 Commission, I recommend reading: http://www.gameshout.com/news/what_about_t...article9499.htm RCD< I saw something in print very recently regarding the mystery plane. "Official sources" said it was high tech communications center which was sent aloft after the attacks. The article didn't go into a lot of detail, but seemed reasonable. IMO the debate about tower collapse is somewhat a waste of time, even if the scenario of the hijackings of the planes is just as we were led to believe that leaves the distinct possibility of government foreknowledge and possibly assistance.

Herb, The issue of the fake Israeli art students was discussed a while back on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0 It remains a suspicious incident, imo, and drawing attention to the fact that 9/11 played right into the hands of the neocons in both the US and Israel does not make you anti-semitic. Mark, Thanks for letting me know about the previous discussion. I missed it, but will review. Herb

If there were 9/11 conspirators within the government, I don't think they would risk including an idiot like Bush in their planning. His value to the conspiracy would be his power as president to manage the cover-up (just like LBJ after the JFK hit, whether involved in the hit or not), without Bush even knowing necessarily what he was doing, since he is told what to do. Two incidents clearly illustrate his handlers' opinion of and approach to Bush. One occurred during the famous pet-goat story where he sat and did nothing for 7 minutes after being informed that "America is under attack." His press secretary held up a hand-scrawled sign to him that said, "Don't say anything yet." (Apparent proof that Bush at least has rudimentary reading ability.) The other incident occurred in one of the 2004 debates with Kerry, when it became obvious that this incompetent oaf was wired. He was talking, and suddenly said, "Let me finish." There was no around who was trying to stop him. His time was not up. He was obviously talking to whoever was speaking to him through a piece in his ear. Would anyone trust this man with a plan to attack America, and to keep it under wraps before, during, and after? Ron, I agree with all of wjhat you say.

Wow you sound like a true neo-con ‘chicken hawk’ armchair warrior! I imagine that you, like I, have no military experience. From the comfort of your bedroom (or where ever your computer is) far from any front in Canada as an academic exercise it easy to talk tough like that. I imagine humanitarian concerns aside needlessly putting troops in the line of fire is bad for morale [did the Canadians ever forgive Mountbatten (sp?)?]. I imagine Franks had to consider the following 1) the reliability of the information, don’t forget he didn’t know the linguist 2) the increase in the likelihood of capturing OBL (if indeed he was there) by sending in US troops 3) the potential casualties from sending US troops. Did he make the wrong decision? Was he unfit for command? I don’t think so but I’m not sure because I don’t have enough information and I’m not qualified to make such a judgment, the same I imagine could be said about you. ME (Len): He wrote: "Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, let me tell you that we found no evidence — none, zero, no kidding — that George Bush knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to attack on September 11. Indeed, the grim joke at BBC is that anyone accusing George Bush of knowing anything at all must have solid evidence. This is not a story of what George Bush knew but rather of his very-unfunny ignorance. And it was not stupidity, but policy: no asking Saudis uncomfortable questions about their paying off roving packs of killers, especially when those Saudis are so generous to Bush family businesses." It seems you did precisely what he didn’t want his reader to. He’s saying this was done for political and personal financial reasons. ROBERT: Re: your fine distinction that Bush was motivated by personal greed and personal political considerations, and hence wasn't solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, you seem that have it somewhat backwards. Bush was solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, and this seems to haved earned Bush a pass from you, so long as it was motivated by personal gain. To me, it is largely irrelevant for which corrupt reasons that is true, only that it is. . I never denied that Bush is a corrupt, lying, crazy A-hole but like Palast I can believe that but still think there was no evidence he had foreknowledge of the attacks and think “inside job” theories nonsensical. Sorry that should have read “Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. Nor is there evidence that having done what Palast though should have been done would have prevented the attack” Len, If Bush saw the memo, which he did, stating that UBL determined to strike in the US then he had foreknowledge of attacks even if not specific knowledge of when and where. And just because Bush wasn't privy to specific foreknowledge doesn't mean others in the government weren't. Herb

Did you actually look at my link? It didn’t dispute that Saudis, even bin-Ladens, were flown out of the US only the contention that they weren’t interviewed first. The site you referenced stipulates several things that remain less than certain, which is only naturally since their source material comes from the 9/11 Commission whose credility is less than stellar, as we'll soon see, and a few that are demonstrably untrue. To wit: "Many sites are a little coy about when this flight occurred, but we'll tell you; it was September the 20th. Not such a rush, really, and no, US airspace was not closed." Technically, this is true, so far as it goes, but its placatory tone is a false one. What it fails to address, which is why I directed your attention to Hopsicker's site, is that such a flight containing Saudis did take place while there was an FAA embargo on air travel, albeit in this instance a domestic one. And, as was initially the case with the Bin Laden flights departing the US, it was originally denied by FBI, FAA and the White House, none of whom seemed capable of discovering what they did not seek. Reading Hopsicker's piece illustrates as much. 911myths. com also contends: "The family members weren't simply allowed to leave, either. The 9/11 commission pointed out: "Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity... The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft". How does one square this with FBI's initial, wholly contradictory claims that no such flights had ever taken place? How does one interview passengers who never flew? Either FBI's initial denials were wrong, or the Commission's Report is, for those two opposing "facts" cannot both be true. I understand your failure to acknowledge the disconnect; so long as you accept the most recent statement - the 9/11 Commission's - as true, you are untroubled by whatever preceded it, no matter how contrary. Your site also asserts: "Had they driven across the border to Canada instead, they could have flown home from there with no questions at all." This is wholly untrue. It presupposes that Canadian air travel security protocols were so lax that persons could come and go as they pleased, with "no questions at all." Only somebody who's never flown in or out of my country would say so silly a thing. Our system may be less draconian than some others, but we do have a system, and thus far it's worked with reasonable efficiency. Hopsicker doesn’t document what you claim according to the Tampa Tribune article: "On Sept 13, 2001, a private Lear jet flew three young Saudi men—a Saudi Arabian prince, the son of the Saudi Arabian defense minister, and the some of a top Saudi army commander—from the Raytheon Terminal at Tampa International Airport to Lexington, Kentucky." So it was a domestic flight and there was no mention of members of the Bin-Laden family being on it. Try again. A simple reference to what I wrote illustrates that this isn't quite so: "It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged." I said nothing about a foreign flight, or the Bin Ladens in referencing the Hopsicker site. "...in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized..." If this was a mere oversight, or benign, why did the White House, FAA and FBI all feel compelled to lie about it? This is a fact that Hopsicker makes clear: When the FBI was insisting the Saudi boys in Tampa never flew to Lexington, KY, on Sept 13, the FBI documents state that if there was a phantom flight: "Such a flight would have been in violation of the FAA's flight ban." Also, that: "FAA reports that full flight restrictions were in effect on 9/13/2001." But when the 9/11 Commission Report admits the flight actually did happen, there's a catch: "The flight definitely took place, and there is nothing improper about it" because "both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open." And: "At the time this charter flight took off, both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open." However, the key point is the one regarding Bush administration solicitude, and this 'phantom flight' was just one such example. Again, from Hopsicker: Today we only know about the phantom flight from Tampa because a former Tampa police officer, Dan Grossi, and a retired FBI Agent, Manuel Perez, provided security on the flight from Tampa to Lexington KY. And then, when asked about it, they told the truth. In October of 2001, Grossi confirmed to the Tampa Tribune that he had been on the flight, and added that he “was told clearance came from the White House after the Saudi royal family asked a favor from former President Bush.” Perez agreed with Grossi’s assessment. "They got the approval somewhere," Perez is quoted in the Vanity Fair article telling reporter Craig Unger. "It must have come from the highest levels of government." Can you provide a citation for this claim? Sure. You may recall that John Kerry repeatedly made this claim, presumably with some basis in fact, while running in the '04 election. It would be a simple matter to cynically denounce such claims as political posturing by a Presidential candidate at the expense of the incumbent. Were it not for the subsequently published book "Jawbreaker" [Dec. '05], written by the CIA point man in charge of seeking out OBL at Tora Bora. CIA initially stalled vetting his book, which had to be submitted to the Agency prior to publication as is common in all such cases, then ensured that some of the book's most damning allegations were excised. Those interested in the meat of the matter might benefit from reading what can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/ A transcript of a January '06 Paula Zahn interview on CNN with the book's CIA-operative author, Gary Bernstein, can be found midway down the page at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/06/pzn.01.html Much that corroborates Bernstein's version of events can be found in "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan" by Gary Schroen, also a Jawbreaker veteran, and Robert Baer has been no wallflower in recounting his own bitter experiences trying motivate a serious hunt for Bin Laden. < Once again none of your linked sources back your claim. Did you read them? Bernstein was interviewed by David Ensor not Paula Zahn. You are correct. I referenced Paula Zahn because it was her show, but it was Ensor who filed the report. You said “US forces at Tora Bora [had] been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing.” 1) The US DID fire on the al-Queda positions, from the CNN transcript you cited: DAVID ENSOR, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (VOICE OVER): In late November of 2001, the CIA sent a four-man CIA military team to hunt Osama bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan. With donkeys and ten Afghans for security, the team scaled a 14,000 foot peak overlooking al Qaeda's mountain retreat at Tora Bora. From there the men used lasers to call in massive firepower from the air. GARY BERNSTEIN, AUTHOR, "JAWBREAKER": And they rained down death and destruction on al Qaeda up in those mountains. The first 56 hours alone. 2) Bernstein didn’t complain about the lack of bombing but, like Kerry, the failure to use US as opposed to Afghan ground troops, You are right, Bernstein didn't "complain about a lack of bombing." I never said he did. What he did complain about was that he knew where OBL was, requested the necessary troops to fire upon and clean out those positions, and his request was overridden [admittedly, I could have phrased my point more cogently]: ENSOR: One of the team's leaders radioed Gary Bernstein, their CIA boss in Kabul, the U.S. should send troops to make sure bin Laden did not get away somehow. Bernstein pleaded the case. (on-camera): How many times and in what way did you ask for American forces? BERNSTEIN: Well, I did it in writing, and then I did it orally with the senior military commanders on the ground. ENSOR (voice over): But the troops to block the Pakistani border were not sent. 3) That decision even according to Bernstein was made by General Franks a career military officer who’d been a general well before Bush jr. came to power not one of his neo-con politicos. Again according to Bernstein, Franks wasn’t sure OBL was in the area and though the risk was too high. He told Ensor: “We had an opportunity. It would have required a bit more acceptance of risk in that case.” And told MSNBC: “Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."” The evidence that OBL was there is less than rock solid: BERNSTEIN: …my linguist was listening to him on the radio, on that un-encrypted radio. And the linguist I had listened to Osama bin Laden's voice four years straight. Any time we wanted someone to translate something it was him. ENSOR: So he knew for sure it was him? BERNSTEIN: He knew for sure. He knew for sure. OK according to Bernstein a CIA linguist strongly believed it was him, it probably was. Might Franks who would have been ordering his troops into harm's way had reasons to be dubious since he didn’t know the linguist? What if he had ordered the troops in and a lot got killed (the Black Hawk Down incident had only been a few years earlier) and OBL wasn’t there or got a way? There are any number of possibilities. However, as Bernstein said, he had requested the troops orally and in writing, and no doubt provided his basis for believing OBL had been located. Commanders who refrain from actions because they are afraid of losses should perhaps be pushing paper in the Pentagon and not troops in the field. While the Black Hawk Down episode was a grisly one, a failure of nerve will never obtain Osama's head. The opportunity to kill or capture Bin Laden seems to have existed, and was foregone. If US losses had been heavy, a dead Osama would have been considered worth the effort. And even if OBL did manage to elude US troops, the Bush-ites could at least have pointed toward the serious effort undertaken, including the loss of US lives, as a measure of their genuine desire to catch the bastard. As it stands, what can they point to with pride in this so-called hunt for OBL? Precious little, it seems. As Bush himself declared, it seems to have been some time since he even cared. He wrote: "Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, let me tell you that we found no evidence — none, zero, no kidding — that George Bush knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to attack on September 11. Indeed, the grim joke at BBC is that anyone accusing George Bush of knowing anything at all must have solid evidence. This is not a story of what George Bush knew but rather of his very-unfunny ignorance. And it was not stupidity, but policy: no asking Saudis uncomfortable questions about their paying off roving packs of killers, especially when those Saudis are so generous to Bush family businesses." It seems you did precisely what he didn’t want his reader to. He’s saying this was done for political and personal financial reasons. Re: your fine distinction that Bush was motivated by personal greed and personal political considerations, and hence wasn't solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, you seem that have it somewhat backwards. Bush was solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, and this seems to haved earned Bush a pass from you, so long as it was motivated by personal gain. To me, it is largely irrelevant for which corrupt reasons that is true, only that it is. You neglected a pithy piece of Palast's post: In November 2001, when BBC ran the report on the spike of investigations of Saudi funding of terror, the Bush defenders whom we’d invited to respond on air dismissed the concerns of lower level FBI agents who’d passed over the WAMY documents. No action was taken on the group headed by the bin Ladens. Then, in May this year, fifty FBI agents surrounded, invaded and sealed off WAMY’s Virginia office. It was like a bad scene out of the ‘Untouchables.’ The raid took place three years after our report and long after the bin Ladens had waved bye-bye. It is not surprising that the feds seized mostly empty files and a lot of soccer balls. Why now this belated move on the bin Laden’s former operation? Why not right after the September 11 attack? This year’s FBI raid occurred just days after an Islamist terror assault in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Apparently, messin’ with the oil sheiks gets this Administration’s attention. Falling towers in New York are only for Republican convention photo ops. The 199-I memo was passed to BBC television by the gumshoes at the National Security News Service in Washington. We authenticated it, added in our own sleuthing, then gave the FBI its say, expecting the usual, “It’s baloney, a fake.” But we didn’t get the usual response. Rather, FBI headquarters said, “There are lots of things the intelligence community knows and other people ought not to know.” Ought not to know? What else ought we not to know, Mr. President? And when are we supposed to forget it? Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. The evidence that having done what Plast though should have been done would have prevented the attack Since you've stopped in mid-sentence, I should allow you to complete it prior to responding to whatever point you intend to raise. RCD, In a reply to one of your earlier posts two or three pages back I referenced the issue of the "dancing Israeli" and the Israeli "art students". Are you familiar with the research regarding the activities of the above mentioned groups? IMO it is some of the most convincing evedence for prior knowledge of the 911 plots. At the risk of bheing leabled anti-semitic there is little doubt that the folks responsible for PNAC share the aura of who benfitted the most from the attacks with reactionary forces in Israel.