Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination

[Herb White]

What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event?

A bit of a myth http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

I see you subscribe to a contra-myth, which is precisely what is contained in the above link. A far more accurate, albeit convoluted, chronogy of events is provided by Daniel Hopsicker at:

http://www.madcowprod.com/06282007a.html

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. When agencies of one's own government repeatedly lie, and come clean only when there is no other option, what does it say about one's government, or the credulity of people who continue to embrace such myths only because they wish them to be true?

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."

Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?

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.

And this solicitude toward the Bin Ladens by the Bushes is not the first, nor unique. Now that I now you share my admiration for Greg Palast, Len, allow me to direct your attention to an old report of his - November '01 - illustrating that the Bush White House seems to have shut down US intelligence interest in two members of the Bin Laden clan living next door to the CIA in early '01. While this event, transpiring prior to the attacks, is less damning than solicitude shown by Bush toward OBL and kin after the attacks, it illustrates the unbroken pattern of a President doing his level best to ensure that a presumed enemy - already wanted for prior crimes against US interests abroad and already slated for murder by CIA via a Clinton authorization - has never had to pay for his crimes, real and alleged. I look forward to your comments once you've had a chance to read Palast's piece, which can be found at:

http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-wha...0%9d/#more-1844 <

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.

[Jack White]

The use of highlighted colors to represent different persons is

very confusing. I can never tell which color (red, green, blue, black)

represents which person. If people want to do this, then each posting

should state which color represents which poster. I have finally

given up and do not read any posting which has multiple colors.

Jack

[Len Colby]

All due respect to Ron aside he misquoted the paper so maybe you’d like to address it or admit error.

I did not "misquote" the paper. I accurately summarized the import of the document vis-a-vis the desired "transformation of warfare" and the need for "a new Pearl Harbor" if that transformation was not to be long and drawn out. If you can't see it, too bad. I tried.

I don’t think you did so intentionally but you incorrectly indicated that the paper called for:

- the removal of Saddam - it did no such thing it took his continuance in power in the foreseeable future for granted. Nowhere did call for the removal of any governments of the invasions of any countries.

- The establishment of a US presence in the Gulf – It actually called for the continuation of the existing presence with only minimal increase in the number of troops there.

Also they didn’t wish for a "new Pearl Harbor"

From a Danish Blog

Time bomb

Commentary

By Matt Hunter

Without exaggeration, I have been witness to so many threatening catastrophies involving conflicts between the police and youths on Blågårdsgade in Copenhagen, I am actually beginning to lose count of the many events.

I am hesitant to place blame in any direction, however there are people elected and paid to govern. They must be deaf, dumb and blind not to realise, there is a very serious, volatile situation in our midst on Blågårdsgade. It is a game of russian roulette. It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed in an avoidable race riot.

The scenario is always the same. For one reason or other, police will attempt to arrest one of the youths. Friends standing by will not allow the arrest. The police call for help. Someone gets insulted, someone else starts throwing stones. It is an unending story. IT SEEMS THAT THE PROBLEM WILL NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

UNTIL SOMEONE GETS KILLED

. Then of course politicians will form special committees to make special reports.

So by your logic the writer wants someone to get killed so that politicians will take the problem seriously?

Riddle me this why would a group closely associated with one candidate openly call for such a thing a month or two before a hotly contested election?

To begin with, most Americans had never heard of the PNAC (and still haven't) before the election. It therefore didn't garner any attention. And the reference to "a new Pearl Harbor," if anyone noticed (how many people besides neocons do you think sat down and read this document in 2000?), the import did not become significant until there was in fact a new Pearl Harbor.

So your really think a group tied to a presidential candidate, in deed a group that he running mate was one of the leading members of would say essentially “it would really be great if the US suffered a catastrophic surprise attack leading to many deaths because that would allow the DoD to adopt new weapons systems we want like ‘information systems’ and space based missile defense systems more quickly” shortly before a highly completive election? Why take the risk especially if they were planning is secretly carrying out such an attack in a year? Why put and leave the paper online? They weren’t that obscure they’d written an open letter to Clinton in 1998, I presume Kristol promoted the group in his magazine. Few people other than neo-cons would notice but what if someone did and pointed it out to the Gore campaign? If it really spelled out a desire for “a new Pearl Harbor” it would all but guarantee victory for the Democrats.

But even you seem to acknowledge as written it doesn’t indicate a desire for (let alone a call for) such a disaster but only seemed to mean that after 9/11 the logic is quite circular.

I wouldn't be surprised if George W. Bush himself had not heard of the PNAC before the election. The 2000 election was in effect a PNAC coup, assured when PNAC member Dick Cheney informed Bush that he was going to be his running mate. A friend of Cheney commented that "it was the Machiavellian (expletive deleted) thing I have ever seen." And thus the PNAC was in (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and several fellow travelers, if that is a correct term) to run the country, through an imbecilic puppet. That's when people (at least those who were interested) started hearing about the PNAC and its manifesto of American global hegemony through the transformation of warfare. And what we have gotten through this coup is an unmitigated disaster (except of course for the war profiteers).

At least we agree on something!

Edited September 14, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

A bit off topic don’t you think?

Not at all.

The JFK assassination was very likely a failed false flag operation; the attacks of

9/11 were a highly successful false flag operation.

By your logic just about any conspiracy or conspiracy theory including the deaths of RFK, MLK and Marilyn would be on topic but John see fit to set up separate forums for those topics. But you missed my point the subject of this thread isn’t the collapse of the towers or 9/11 in general, there already are threads covering those issues. The 9/11 related debate here is revolving around bin Laden and the PNAC report.

"Falling apart" not by a long shot

From your article:

"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think,

more likely

, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Dr. Quintiere scientifically ratifies the controlled-demolition scenario as possible albeit "less likely" than his pancake collapse theory.

Interesting spin on his comments you ignored the “he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives” part. I think it’s possible the US will amend the constitution so that the “governator” can get elected president but I think “it’s more likely” they won’t. But even if he really meant that he though CD was “possible” (but unlikely) that doesn’t help you very much.

Also there is a major problem with his objections from your article:

"Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; THEY SOFTENED IN THE HEAT OF THE FIRE AND SHORTENED AND THAT LED TO THE COLLAPSE. THEY PULLED IN THE EXTERNAL COLUMNS AND IT CAUSED IT TO BUCKLE. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”

In reality NIST said that it was the floor trusses not the core columns that “softened in the heat of the fire and shortened” causing them “to pulled in the external columns and … caused [them] to buckle” which “led to the collapse”. I don’t have time to comb through the report now but the head of the investigation said (emphasis added), “While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as THE PERIMETER COLUMNS WERE PULLED INWARD BY THE SAGGING FLOORS AND BUCKLED.” To make a long story short he was criticizing the conclusions of a report he didn’t understand or didn’t read.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/release...g_april0505.htm

Others disagree and posit a controlled-demolition as far "more likely."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Yes, many others believe what you do and many people “posit” that

Elvis is still alive

God created man out of clay on the sixth day and rested on the seventh

the Holocaust was a hoax

Coincidentally or not most of the people who back the latter theory ‘posit a controlled-demolition as far "more likely"’. But I wasn’t talking about kinseologists, theologians or plumbers but rather structural engineers. The group you linked too only lists two. One is Charles Pegelow, the aforementioned oil rig specialist and the other is Doyle Witherton (or something like that) from Provo Utah, who is listed as a “retired structural engineer” but is one checks for a license in his home state all that pops up is ‘provisional’ license that expired decades ago. There is someone by that name in Provo who sold high-end A/V equipment, perhaps this it the guy who sold Dr. Jones his home theater.

What I’m looking for is a duly licensed structural engineer who:

1) has worked on high-rises in the last 40 years (when buildings like the WTC started to be built)

2) read and understood the NIST report

3) says that a) CD is more likely and why he (or she) thinks so.

Some creationists point to disagreement among biologists as evidence that evolution is questionable even though only one biologist (that I know of) actually questions evolution itself.

So far the only structural engineer to say he believes the towers we felled due to controlled demolition is an oilrig specialist who hasn’t worked on buildings since he was an unlicensed just graduated intern in the early 70’s

Wrong. See above.

See above

Edited September 13, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Since I think Jack was right about these posts being confusing I added names to the replies.

ROBERT: My current comments are in this lovely shade:

ROBERT: How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been?

ME (Len): Perhaps that’s because they’ve been unable to. It took them years to pull off 9/11, there first ever attack on the US when they had safe haven and the US had “its pants down” now that they/he is on the run and US security has tightened doing so again would not be easy.

ROBERT: How difficult is it to arrange car bombs in Washington?

ME (Len): I doubt either of us can answer that authoritatively. A car bomb in front of a post office or mall probably would not too difficult assuming they could 1) still put cells together in the US with the know how 2) obtain bomb making materials without being detected but hard targets wouldn’t be so easy.

ROBERT: Insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere have little trouble managing this, in an environment more heavily secured by military than anywhere in the US.

You’re joking right? Iraq is in the middle of virtual civil war the US only has effective control over a small part of Baghdad and few other limited areas where car bomb attacks are very rare. Iraq is a country with 10’s of millions of people with motive to want to attack the US or other Iraqis, military stockpiles were looted after Saddam’s fall etc etc.

ROBERT: For an implacable enemy, OBL has shown as little interest in continuing what he started as GWB has shown in hunting OBL down.

As I already pointed out OBL lost his safe haven since 9/11 he also lost at lot of his top people i.e his operational capacity is way below what it was before even then it took years to set up but now the US is paying more attention.

He could believe he accomplished his goals he:

humiliated the US

struck three iconic targets,

destroyed two

did serious damage to the US and especially NYC economies

became a folk hero to millions of Muslims

possibly provoked the US into a blunderous overreaction

etc etc.

You believe that he should have tried to strike the US again but have offered zero evidence to support that claim. You believe he should have been content to set off car bombs in front of soft targets despite that not seeming to be his style (Where has he ever done this outside of the Arab world?).

You also ignore that he seems to concentrating his energies elsewhere at the moment, Iraq.

As for Bush. One of the great failures of his administration was that he jumped into the war in Iraq before stabilizing Afghanistan? Might they have been able to catch OBL if troos hadn’t been diverted away? He now seems to be in a part of Pakistan not under the control of the central government. The Pakistani military government seems to be to weak to go after Al-Queda there themselves and sending in US troops would probably lead to it’s downfall.

ROBERT: When people theorize that the absence of secondary attacks on US soil are attributable to improved US security regimes, I can provide just as much evidence that this absence of violence is because I pray very hard to a pet rock in my basement which is all powerful. Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture. At least you prefaced your supposition with "perhaps," an important qualifier to provide in such assertions.

ME (Len): I rarely agree with Tim but such an assertion is silly, is it really your contention that increased: security at airports, boarder crossings and other “hard targets”/critical locations; surveillance of suspects; coordination between the FBI, CIA etc and the other steps taken post 9/11 have as much effect as praying to your rock?

ROBERT: As did Tim, you are purposefully missing the key point - "Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture." Unless one can point to repeated examples of intended AQ strikes on US soil being foiled by DHS, et al, one must surmise there is no evidence upon which to believe AQ exhibits such intent. If you can provide such examples, I'm all ears.

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.

ROBERT: Let us recall that the original attempt to bring down the WTC would never have transpired without the timely aid provided by an FBI agent provocateur, who was subsequently all but disowned by the very FBI men controlling him.

ME (Len): I’ve heard that claimed but see little supporting evidence. All there is are tapes made by the informant after the fact in which he claimed he had told them about the attack ahead of time and could have switched the explosives but it seems they had basically “disowned” him before the bombing.

ROBERT: From which you draw what inference? That they were correct to do so? If so, the result militates in the opposite direction. That they were incorrect to do so? Then why did they? Because a man whom they had previously thought credible, a man whom they insinuated into the alleged cell and whose actions they had directed, suddenly became unworthy of their continued confidence precisely at the time he allegedly warned them the plot was about to reach fruition? What an odd way to conduct such affairs.

ME (Len): 1. IIRC it is far from certain he had told them only that he claimed after the fact he had. Apperently they lost faith in him he was a paid informer not an agent.

2. Even if they did screw up that does prove conspiracy.

ROBERT: I realize you meant the opposite of what you have typed here, but I prefer what you wrote to what you intended.

OK “Even if they did screw up that does NOT prove conspiracy” happy now?

Peter Lance (as quoted by Michael Hogan) who extensively researched the incident wrote the following in the preface of his book “Triple Cross”:

“So Ronnie Bucca, who was in an army reserve intelligence detachment, got himself assigned to the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center (DIAC) at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington. There, as he began to examine the intel, he learned that the FBI actually had an informant inside the bombing cell months before the blast, BUT AFTER A FALLING-OUT WITH A BUREAU SUPERVISOR, HE'D WITHDRAWN.”

Note - Michael also quoted another passage which indicated “the FBI had…prior warnings that a bomb or bombs would go off in New York City the FBI”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117649

Edited September 15, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

ROBERT: Is this not akin to the later lapse when one George Bush, et al, managed to ignore a briefing memo headed "OBL determined to attack the US," which included the prediction that such an attack would use hijacked planes to accomplish the deed?

ME(Len): I agree with you that the Bush administration (and to a lesser extent the Clinton administration) was grossly negligent but once again incompetence doesn’t = conspiracy. The memo contained little intelligence that could have been acted on nothing indicated such attacks were imminent.

ROBERT: Precisely how many times must one swallow the "incompetence" line before it demonstably ceases to be incompetence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities? Just how credulous would you have your fellow citizens be? Such a blase uncritical credulity is not an attribute when attempting to divine the truth in such matters.

Strawman I didn’t use the incompetence theory regarding the memo and only used it as a secondary possibility forr the 1st WTC attack.

ROBERT: The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled.

ME (Len): Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper) but for “the Department of Defense [to] move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems.”

ROBERT: I see that the formidable Ron Ecker has already dispatched that particular canard, so I'll not dwell upon it.

ME (Len): All due respect to Ron aside he misquoted the paper so maybe you’d like to address it or admit error.

ROBERT: Sorry, but no dice. I read the documentation in precisely the way Ron does, and I notice he's added some further comments, with which I also concur. You are free to disagree. However, irrespective of the goal in mind - territorial hegemony or development of new weapons or whatever else is inferred - the fact remains that precisely the scenario that they identified as speeding the achievement of their goals is what transpired. Precisely how many times must one swallow the "happy coincidence" line before it demonstably ceases to be coincidence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities?

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”

[Len Colby]

ROBERT: What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event?

ME (Len): A bit of a myth http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

ROBERT: I see you subscribe to a contra-myth, which is precisely what is contained in the above link. A far more accurate, albeit convoluted, chronogy of events is provided by Daniel Hopsicker at:

http://www.madcowprod.com/06282007a.html

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. When agencies of one's own government repeatedly lie, and come clean only when there is no other option, what does it say about one's government, or the credulity of people who continue to embrace such myths only because they wish them to be true?

ME (Len): 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.

Wow what a convoluted paragraph! The flights the 9/11 C and 911myths were referring to were the ones that took the bin Laden’s out of the US not the one that took Saudi VIPs from Florida to Kentucky.

ROBERT: 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.

If you read with more care you would have realized he meant “no questions at all” from the FBI.

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?

ME (Len): 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.

ROBERT: 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:

You seemed to be citing Hopsicker in support of your claim that “the Buxxxxes…allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event” as evidence by your ‘convoluted’ paragraph above. Do you have any evidence in support of this claim? Richard Clarke a fierce critic of the Bush regime says it’s not true.

ROBERT: Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?

ME (Len): Can you provide a citation for this claim?

ROBERT: 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.

ME (Len): Once again none of your linked sources back your claim. Did you read them? Bernstein was interviewed by David Ensor not Paula Zahn.

ROBERT: You are correct. I referenced Paula Zahn because it was her show, but it was Ensor who filed the report.

ME (Len): 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,

ROBERT: 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]:

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”.

It also sounds to me like you conflated Tora Bora with a fictional incident during the Clinton administration from the “the Path to 9/11” in which “National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, is portrayed as unwilling to approve a plan to take out a surrounded Osama bin Laden.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9...used_by_Clinton ]. Even a conservative Clinton administration critic said this was inacurate “the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.” [ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911 ]

”

[Len Colby]

ME (Len): 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?

ROBERT: 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…

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.

ROBERT: And this solicitude toward the Bin Ladens by the Bushes is not the first, nor unique. Now that I now you share my admiration for Greg Palast, Len, allow me to direct your attention to an old report of his - November '01 - illustrating that the Bush White House seems to have shut down US intelligence interest in two members of the Bin Laden clan living next door to the CIA in early '01. While this event, transpiring prior to the attacks, is less damning than solicitude shown by Bush toward OBL and kin after the attacks, it illustrates the unbroken pattern of a President doing his level best to ensure that a presumed enemy - already wanted for prior crimes against US interests abroad and already slated for murder by CIA via a Clinton authorization - has never had to pay for his crimes, real and alleged. I look forward to your comments once you've had a chance to read Palast's piece, which can be found at:

http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-wha...0%9d/#more-1844 <

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.

ME (Len): Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. The evidence that having done what Palast though should have been done would have prevented the attack

ROBERT: Since you've stopped in mid-sentence, I should allow you to complete it prior to responding to whatever point you intend to raise.

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”

[Ron Ecker]

you incorrectly indicated that the paper called for:

- the removal of Saddam - it did no such thing it took his continuance in power in the foreseeable future for granted.

I don't recall my wording on this point. Perhaps I read the PNAC's position on Saddam too much into this particular document where the position isn't overtly expressed. The PNAC's position on Saddam was unequivocal. It wanted him removed from power. Is there anything in this document that contradicts or withdraws that desire? The PNAC wrote to Clinton in 1997, in a letter signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of their gang, the following: "In the long term, (the only acceptable strategy) means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy." Is that clear enough?

Also they didn’t wish for a "new Pearl Harbor"

The wish is clearly implied, in my opinion and that of others. You are welcome to your interpretation. My interpretation is reinforced by the fact that a "new Pearl Harbor" is exactly what happened when these fascists came to power.

So your really think a group tied to a presidential candidate, in deed a group that he running mate was one of the leading members of would say essentially “it would really be great if the US suffered a catastrophic surprise attack leading to many deaths because that would allow the DoD to adopt new weapons systems we want like ‘information systems’ and space based missile defense systems more quickly” shortly before a highly completive election?

No, I don't think that at all. It's true that the document as worded relates "a new Pearl Harbor" to speeding up "transformation," but that is not what they wanted such a catastrophe for. They wanted a new Pearl Harbor to do exactly what they have done in pursuit of what they have unequivocally stated should be "the aim of American foreign policy": the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein. And of course they would then have their increased military presence in the Gulf region, to pursue their stated goal of "extending the zones of democratic peace." A nice Orwellian term for imperialism. Only one thing went wrong with this bloody quixotic quest for hegemony in the Middle East and beyond: they weren't greeted with flowers by the Iraqis as expected and can't get past the quagmire they have created in Iraq. They are not quite as all-powerful as they think they are or dream of being.

But that isn't going to stop these fanatics. They're going to bomb Iran anyway.

[Cliff Varnell]

By your logic just about any conspiracy or conspiracy theory including the deaths of RFK, MLK and Marilyn would be on topic but John see fit to set up separate forums for those topics.

And by what alchemy of logic did you arrive at that conclusion?

Every conspiracy theory is of a false flag operation?

I've never posited the deaths of RFK, MLK or MM as false flag operations -- please

leave your own words to your own mouth, okay?

The JFK assassination and 9/11 are linked as no two other historical

events, as I shall argue going forward.

But you missed my point the subject of this thread isn’t the collapse of the towers or 9/11 in general, there already are threads covering those issues. The 9/11 related debate here is revolving around bin Laden and the PNAC report.

Okay, Thread Cop, write me up and I'll be on my way...

Me:

Dr. Quintiere scientifically ratifies the controlled-demolition scenario as possible albeit "less likely" than his pancake collapse theory.

Interesting spin on his comments you ignored the “he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives” part.

Those were the words of the writer of the article. If you actually read

Dr. Quintiere's comment he cites the pancake collapse as MORE LIKELY.

Hardly the blanket dismissal you suggest.

He also says there's been no "official" explanation whatsoever for the

fall of WTC 7 -- which is equivalent to the clothing evidence in the JFK

assassination.

WTC7 and JFK's shirt and jacket are the physical evidence defenders

of the Official Faith have to ignore.

I think it’s possible the US will amend the constitution so that the “governator” can get elected president but I think “it’s more likely” they won’t. But even if he really meant that he though CD was “possible” (but unlikely) that doesn’t help you very much.

Also there is a major problem with his objections from your article:

"Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; THEY SOFTENED IN THE HEAT OF THE FIRE AND SHORTENED AND THAT LED TO THE COLLAPSE. THEY PULLED IN THE EXTERNAL COLUMNS AND IT CAUSED IT TO BUCKLE. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”

And it then turned into billowing dust after it buckled?

What happened to the three-core structures, Len?

They didn't melt. There wasn't a huge pile of weak steel.

What happened to the massive steel cores and how did they collapse straight

down in free-fall speed?

Since the steel didn't melt why was there molten metal burning at Ground Zero

for TWO MONTHS afterward?

Why did Rudy Guiliani say he had been forewarned of the Towers collapse?

There's going to be a new investigation after Bush and Cheney leave office.

Sentient Americans will demand it.

In reality NIST said that it was the floor trusses not the core columns that “softened in the heat of the fire and shortened” causing them “to pulled in the external columns and … caused [them] to buckle” which “led to the collapse”. I don’t have time to comb through the report now but the head of the investigation said (emphasis added), “While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as THE PERIMETER COLUMNS WERE PULLED INWARD BY THE SAGGING FLOORS AND BUCKLED.” To make a long story short he was criticizing the conclusions of a report he didn’t understand or didn’t read.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/release...g_april0505.htm

To make a long story short, you have no Official Explanation for WTC7 -- and

the walls of dis-info are coming down, Len, whether you like it or not.

The group you linked too only lists two. One is Charles Pegelow, the aforementioned oil rig specialist

The guy is an expert on the impact fire has on steel -- how does that disqualify him?

and the other is Doyle Witherton (or something like that) from Provo Utah, who is listed as a “retired structural engineer” but is one checks for a license in his home state all that pops up is ‘provisional’ license that expired decades ago. There is someone by that name in Provo who sold high-end A/V equipment, perhaps this it the guy who sold Dr. Jones his home theater.

Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer

Lafayette, CA

Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer

West Bend, WI

Edited September 14, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Add:

William Rice, PE – Registered Professional Civil Engineer who worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

* Essay Vermont Guardian 3/1/07: "Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. ...

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn't include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the "unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed. http://www.vermontguardian.com

[Tim Gratz]

As Gallileo once wrote to Johannes Kepler: "I don't know whether to laugh, or cry."

Simply unbelievable.

So Peter who was the mastermind behind JFK and 9-11?

Richard Helms?

Come on, tell us who you think the "big fish" is.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Antti Hynonen]

I would like to correct a misstatement here:

The population of Iraq is around 27 million, the 43rd most populated country in the world, not a country with 100's of millions of people. The USA by the way is the third most popluated (around 300 million), following China (1.3 billion) and India some (1.1 billion).

Source:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop-people-population

(Len Colby Sep. 14th 12:06 a.m.):

You’re joking right? Iraq is in the middle of virtual civil war the US only has effective control over a small part of Baghdad and few other limited areas where car bomb attacks are very rare. Iraq is a country with 100’s of millions of people with motive to want to attack the US or other Iraqis, military stockpiles were looted after Saddam’s fall etc etc.

[Tim Gratz]

Peter wrote:

Had the real criminals of Dallas been brought to justice most of the string of horrors since [sic] would not have happened.....including Mr. bin Laden and his strang [sic] videos.

Sorry, Peter, Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden was only six and a half in November of 1963. As intelligent as he is, I still think he was a tad too young to be the brains behind Dallas.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Herb White]

ME (Len): 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?

ROBERT: 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…

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.

ROBERT: And this solicitude toward the Bin Ladens by the Bushes is not the first, nor unique. Now that I now you share my admiration for Greg Palast, Len, allow me to direct your attention to an old report of his - November '01 - illustrating that the Bush White House seems to have shut down US intelligence interest in two members of the Bin Laden clan living next door to the CIA in early '01. While this event, transpiring prior to the attacks, is less damning than solicitude shown by Bush toward OBL and kin after the attacks, it illustrates the unbroken pattern of a President doing his level best to ensure that a presumed enemy - already wanted for prior crimes against US interests abroad and already slated for murder by CIA via a Clinton authorization - has never had to pay for his crimes, real and alleged. I look forward to your comments once you've had a chance to read Palast's piece, which can be found at:

http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-wha...0%9d/#more-1844 <

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.

ME (Len): Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. The evidence that having done what Palast though should have been done would have prevented the attack

ROBERT: Since you've stopped in mid-sentence, I should allow you to complete it prior to responding to whatever point you intend to raise.

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