something wicked this way comes,the offical story of 911..something very wrong

[Len Colby]

Dear Len,

So far you have refused, avoided, dodged, obfuscated etc. when it comes to your obligation to demand release of all of the evidence and testimony. I can draw a lot from that.

Where exactly did you bring this up? Ironic you’d bring this up since obviously you never looked at the vast amounts of information made available.

“In addition, you have not provided readers here a plausible reason why you invest so much time trying to square the circle, i.e. prove the impossible, that the government didn't do it”

Circular thinking, it based on the premise you are try to prove. I can turn that right around “you have not provided readers here a plausible reason why you invest so much time trying to square the circle, i.e. prove the impossible, that AQ didn't do it” or do you think posting here and elsewhere on the Net is going to make a difference.

”How many times do I have to say it? The governments are the biggest killers of people by orders of magnitude compared to terrorists or individuals.”

True but not relevant.

“Thirdly, the government, i.e. the Neocons had the only motive for this…”

You are demonstrating your ignorance again, I doubt you are even aware of OBL’s Fatwas, some observers have even speculated he wanted to draw the US into Afghanistan.

“…which they spelled out in their request for a New Pearl Harbor.”

They never made such a request, obviously you never looked at the PNAC document were the phrase appeared.

“And guess what, Len? A New Pearl Harbor is precisely what we got, along with a Patriot Act (which you also dodge) that abrogates the Constitution.”

A vast exaggeration

“To you perhaps the Constitution is just a scrap of paper, as stated by John J. McCloy”

Nope I was involved in the ACLU for years.

“Fourth, challenging my credentials won't do you any good. I put my money where my mouth is when it comes to code.”

You claim to write code but can’t cut and paste? That’s like saying you don’t know how to check your oil but are a mechanic.

“Fifth, your insistence on the plane-center scenario doesn't wash. The debris from the impact spills out the adjacent side of the building, not the opposite side where you believe the plane was headed.”

BS videos show that although the east side of the tower blew out the bulk of ejected debris shot out of the north side.

“The core was not damaged. There was no significant heat in the building, until the ignition of the demolition.”

Unsupported BS

[Len Colby]

Let's see, 15 seconds instead of 9 seconds, for the entire 1365 foot skyscraper

15 seconds comes out to 12ft sec/sec less than 40% of gravitational rate, 32 ft sec/sec

to "fall" clear through its path of greatest resistance (through itself),

That's the path of gravity Einstein. In CD only a few floors are "cut" gravity does the rest and the buildings normally go straight down.

all the way to the ground... Amazing, isn't it?

No

How many seconds was that for the other tower? Skyscrapers can fall through themselves that fast only in 9/11, never in the real world.

Wrong see above.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

More debunkery. Read what I said about benefit of the doubt. You debunkers always use "nuttery" etc. when you know you're wrong and have nothing to stand on. The last resort of the desperate. And yes, they are equivalent. Another last resort of debunkers is the "you dishonor the dead" charge. C'mon - you are so transparent.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

So, we have "no need" for all that evidence after all. Well, that's clear enough where you stand. You're with the suppressors. I know the ACLU - like the ADL, they're just another political hack group. Check out how they treated the guy who was investigating Courtney Love. There's nothing in your latest muddling to challenge - after all you might have had the fantasy that I was somehow trying to convince you debunkers of something. That is of course a fantasy. I say what I say solely for the benefit of new readers so they can compare and see how debunkers work.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

Usama Bin Laden was our boy (Tim Osman). We gave his whole family a free secure ride back to Saudi on 9/11, no questions asked.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

These people who used 9/11 as an excuse to kill a million human beings in Iraq - that's not relevant? Oh, it's relevant all right.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

Alright, debunkers. I have real work I have to get back to. Unlike y'all I don't get paid to do my patriotic duty here. New readers can get an eyeful on the first few pages here, assuming they won't be deleted. Maybe I'll check back in a few days or weeks.

[Matthew Lewis]

Usama Bin Laden was our boy (Tim Osman). We gave his whole family a free secure ride back to Saudi on 9/11, no questions asked.

Wrong

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight

[Steven Gaal]

Usama Bin Laden was our boy (Tim Osman). We gave his whole family a free secure ride back to Saudi on 9/11, no questions asked.

Wrong

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

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

Bin Laden family flight (special treatment is given) Historycommon.org

oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

September 13, 2001: Saudi Royals Fly to Kentucky in Violation of Domestic Flight Ban

After a complete air flight ban in the US began during the 9/11 attacks, some commercial flights begin resuming this day. However, all private flights are still banned from flying. Nonetheless, at least one private flight carrying Saudi royalty takes place on this day. And in subsequent days, other flights carry royalty and bin Laden family members. These flights take place even as fighters escort down three other private planes attempting to fly. Most of the Saudi royals and bin Ladens in the US at the time are high school or college students and young professionals. [New York Times, 9/30/2001; Vanity Fair, 10/2003] The first flight is a Lear Jet that leaves from a private Raytheon hangar in Tampa, Florida, and takes three Saudis to Lexington, Kentucky. [Tampa Tribune, 10/5/2001] This flight apparently takes place several hours after a private meeting between President Bush and Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US. Some think the idea of the flights were approved at that meeting (see September 13, 2001). For two years, this violation of the air ban is denied by the FAA, FBI, and White House, and decried as an urban legend except for one article detailing them in a Tampa newspaper. [Tampa Tribune, 10/5/2001] Finally, in 2003, counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke confirms the existence of these flights, and Secretary of State Powell confirms them as well. [MSNBC, 9/7/2003; Vanity Fair, 10/2003] However, the White House remains silent on the matter. [New York Times, 9/4/2003] Officials at the Tampa International Airport finally confirm this first flight in 2004. But whether the flight violated the air ban or not rests on some technicalities that remain unresolved. [Lexington Herald-Leader, 6/10/2004] The Saudis are evacuated to Saudi Arabia over the next several days (see September 14-19, 2001).

==========================o====================

September 13, 2001: President Bush and Saudi Ambassador Discuss Evacuating Saudis and Terrorist Renditions

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

PICTURE NOT uploaded

From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [source: White House]

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

President Bush and Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US, hold a private meeting at the White House. Vice President Cheney, National Security Adviser Rice, and Bandar’s aide Rihab Massoud also attend. [Woodward, 2006, pp. 80] Bandar is so close to the Bush family that he is nicknamed “Bandar Bush.” Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) later will note that while little is known about what is discussed in the meeting, mere hours later, the first flights transporting Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family are in the air (see September 13, 2001). Over the next week, they will be taken to several gathering points, and then flown back to Saudi Arabia, apparently without first being properly interviewed by the FBI (see September 14-19, 2001). Graham will say, “Richard Clarke, then the White House’s counterterrorism tsar, told me that he was approached by someone in the White House seeking approval for the departures. He did not remember who made the request… The remaining question is where in the White House the request originated, and how.” Graham will imply that, ultimately, the request originated from this meeting between Bush and Bandar. [Graham and Nussbaum, 2004, pp. 105-107] Others also will later suggest that it was Bandar who pushed for and helped arrange the flights. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003; Fifth Estate, 10/29/2003 ] Bob Woodward will mention in a 2006 book that during the meeting, Bush tells Bandar, “If we [capture] somebody and we can’t get them to cooperate, we’ll hand them over to you.” Woodward will later comment, “With these words, the president casually expressed what became the US government’s rendition policy-the shifting of terrorist suspects from country to country for interrogation.… Though the Saudis denied it, the CIA believe the Saudis tortured terrorist suspects to make them talk.” [Woodward, 2006, pp. 80]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++o+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

September 14-19, 2001: Bin Laden Family Members, Saudi Royals Quietly Leave US

Following a secret flight inside the US that is in violation of a national private airplane flight ban, members of the bin Laden family and Saudi royalty quietly depart the US. The flights are only publicly acknowledged after all the Saudis have left. [boston Globe, 9/21/2001; New York Times, 9/30/2001] About 140 Saudis, including around 24 members of the bin Laden family, are passengers in these flights. The identities of most of these passengers are not known. However, some of the passengers include:

The son of the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan. Sultan is sued in August 2002 for alleged complicity in the 9/11 plot. [Tampa Tribune, 10/5/2001] He is alleged to have contributed at least $6 million since 1994 to four charities that finance al-Qaeda. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003]

Khalil bin Laden. He has been investigated by the Brazilian government for possible terrorist connections. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003]

Abdullah bin Laden and Omar bin Laden, cousins of bin Laden. Abdullah was the US director of the Muslim charity World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). The governments of India, Pakistan, Philippines, and Bosnia have all accused WAMY of funding terrorism. These two relatives were investigated by the FBI in 1996 (see February-September 11, 1996) in a case involving espionage, murder, and national security. Their case is reopened on September 19, right after they leave the country. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003] Remarkably, four of the 9/11 hijackers briefly lived in the town of Falls Church, Virginia, three blocks from the WAMY office headed by Abdullah bin Laden. [bBC, 11/6/2001]

Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen. He is a prominent Saudi official who was in the same hotel as three of the hijackers the night before 9/11. He leaves on one of the first flights to Saudi Arabia before the FBI can properly interview him about this. [Washington Post, 10/2/2003]

Akberali Moawalla. A Pakistani and business partner of Osama’s brother Yeslam bin Laden. In 2000, a transfer of over $250 million was made from a bank account belonging jointly to Moawalla and Osama bin Laden (see 2000). [Washington Post, 7/22/2004]

There is a later dispute regarding how thoroughly the Saudis are interviewed before they leave and who approves the flights. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke says he agrees to the flights after the FBI assures him none of those on board has connections to terrorism and that it is “a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” [uS Congress, 9/3/2003] Clarke says the decision to approve the flights “didn’t get any higher than me.” [Hill, 5/18/2004] According to Vanity Fair, both the FBI and the State Department “deny playing any role whatsoever in the episode.” However, Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, says the Saudis on the planes “[are] identified, but they [are] not subject to serious interviews or interrogations” before they leave. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003] An FBI spokesperson says the bin Laden relatives are only interviewed by the FBI “at the airport, as they [are] about to leave.” [National Review, 9/11/2002] There are claims that some passengers are not interviewed by the FBI at all. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003] Abdullah bin Laden, who stays in the US, says that even a month after 9/11, his only contact with the FBI is a brief phone call. [boston Globe, 9/21/2001; New Yorker, 11/5/2001] The FBI official responsible for coordinating with Clarke is Assistant Director Michael Rolince, who is in charge of the Bureau’s International Terrorism Operations Section and assumes responsibility for the Saudi flights. Rolince decides that the Saudis can leave after their faces are matched to their passport photos and their names are run through various databases, including some watch lists, to check the FBI has no derogatory information about them.” [9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 196-197, 209 ] Numerous experts are surprised that the bin Ladens are not interviewed more extensively before leaving, pointing out that interviewing the relatives of suspects is standard investigative procedure. [National Review, 9/11/2002; Vanity Fair, 10/2003] MSNBC claims that “members of the Saudi royal family met frequently with bin Laden—both before and after 9/11” [MSNBC, 9/5/2003] , and many Saudi royals and bin Laden relatives are being sued for their alleged role in 9/11. The Boston Globe opines that the flights occur “too soon after 9/11 for the FBI even to know what questions to ask, much less to decide conclusively that each Saudi [royal] and bin Laden relative [deserve] an ‘all clear,’ never to be available for questions again.” [boston Globe, 9/30/2003] Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) says of the secret flights: “This is just another example of our country coddling the Saudis and giving them special privileges that others would never get. It’s almost as if we didn’t want to find out what links existed.” [New York Times, 9/4/2003] Judicial Watch will disclose FBI documents that say, “Osama bin Laden may have chartered one of the Saudi flights.” [Judicial Watch, 6/20/2007]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^o^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

September 20, 2001: Not All Passengers on ‘Bin Laden Flight’ Are Properly Interviewed or Accounted For

A private plane picks up Saudis who have gathered in Boston and flies them to Paris, then ultimately to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Because most of the passengers on board are relatives of Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 Commission calls this the “so-called bin Laden flight.” The commission claims there are 26 passengers on board, three of them security personnel. They further report that “22 of the 26… were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions.” However, the commission does not answer how many were not asked detailed questions, or were not questioned at all. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 557] However, Craig Unger, author of the book House of Bush, House of Saud, publishes the flight manifest during the same week as the 9/11 Commission’s final report is released, and this list contains 29 names (including the three security personnel), not 26. [Craig Unger website, 7/22/2004] The 2005 book Al-Qaeda Will Conquer by Guillaume Dasquié also makes note of this three-person discrepancy. [Financial Times, 4/27/2005]

[Matthew Lewis]

Usama Bin Laden was our boy (Tim Osman). We gave his whole family a free secure ride back to Saudi on 9/11, no questions asked.

Wrong

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^o^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

September 20, 2001: Not All Passengers on ‘Bin Laden Flight’ Are Properly Interviewed or Accounted For

A private plane picks up Saudis who have gathered in Boston and flies them to Paris, then ultimately to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Because most of the passengers on board are relatives of Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 Commission calls this the “so-called bin Laden flight.” The commission claims there are 26 passengers on board, three of them security personnel. They further report that “22 of the 26… were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions.” However, the commission does not answer how many were not asked detailed questions, or were not questioned at all. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 557] However, Craig Unger, author of the book House of Bush, House of Saud, publishes the flight manifest during the same week as the 9/11 Commission’s final report is released, and this list contains 29 names (including the three security personnel), not 26. [Craig Unger website, 7/22/2004] The 2005 book Al-Qaeda Will Conquer by Guillaume Dasquié also makes note of this three-person discrepancy. [Financial Times, 4/27/2005]

Thanks for backing me up. It was said "no questions asked" and clearly 22 of the 26 were in fact questioned.

Though one must wonder what they thought extended family members would even know or what else should have been done besides questioning. If somebody commits a crime do you go and lock up all their cousins?

[Evan Burton]

Dale,

You are new here so you get a warning about this: Do not intimate or accuse any Forum member of being a paid poster unless you have evidence of such activity. If you do have evidence, then contact the moderating team and present it to them. If the evidence is accurate and a person is a paid poster, then I can pretty much guarantee they will have their membership cancelled and I would personally recommend that all their posts are deleted.

If you disagree with someone, attack their ideas, demonstrate why their opinions should not be listened to, highlight the flaws in their arguments.

You should also familiarise yourself with the Forum rules / etiquette / code of conduct.

[Evan Burton]

What difference would release make since truthers would simply claim it is fake?

That is a good point. We've seen similar things before. For example, the LRO images of the Apollo landing sites. For years HBs were crying out for evidence and when it was provided to them, they simply dismissed it as fake without being able to show any evidence of it being faked.

Likewise the Purdue computer modelling of the Pentagon attack. 9-11 'truthers' haven't been able to point out flaws in the assumptions or algorithms; they simply dismiss the evidence that does support the 'official' version of events and label them as 'debunkers'.

[Evan Burton]

So, we have "no need" for all that evidence after all. Well, that's clear enough where you stand. You're with the suppressors. I know the ACLU - like the ADL, they're just another political hack group. Check out how they treated the guy who was investigating Courtney Love. There's nothing in your latest muddling to challenge - after all you might have had the fantasy that I was somehow trying to convince you debunkers of something. That is of course a fantasy. I say what I say solely for the benefit of new readers so they can compare and see how debunkers work.

But you never offer evidence to support your view; you just say that you know better.

[Evan Burton]

If somebody commits a crime do you go and lock up all their cousins?

Sadly that is the case in some parts of the world. Luckily, the US, UK, Australia and other democratic nations are not amongst them.

[Len Colby]

More debunkery. Read what I said about benefit of the doubt. You debunkers always use "nuttery" etc. when you know you're wrong and have nothing to stand on.The last resort of the desperate.

LOL this coming from the guy who started the insults on this thread

And yes, they are equivalent.

What and what "are equivalent"?

Another last resort of debunkers is the "you dishonor the dead" charge.

This from the guy who made an idiotic comparison to Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR.

So, we have "no need" for all that evidence after all. Well, that's clear enough where you stand.

Re-read what I wrote, you obviously haven't even looked at the evidence that has been released already and would simply claim any new releases were fake.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Len Colby