Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Duane Daman]

Zeitgeist - The Movie synopsis of an excellent 9/11 doc

Part I. Deconstructing the old terror. The first 35 minutes establishes Christian religion as a parody of ancient astrology. Thus the basis for the Dark Ages was false. A criminally tragic parody -- entertainment -- as the received basis of Western violence. Tough to imagine, but true, as the historical record shows.

Part II. Deconstructing the new terror. The second 35 minutes develops 9/11 Truth. Overcoming mythology again. Merciless, surgical deconstruction of the official mythology shrouding 9/11. Beautiful work!

Theme: Don't you believe your life should count for something?

Seamless thread-tie back to JFK. The monster was the same then as it is now. Shouldn't we be better students of history?

Part III. The final 45 minutes identifies the source behind the terror: the money masters. Capitalism is interest. Money becomes the new religion, the new tyranny. Not Death and Taxes -- Debt and Taxes. The rise of the Fed. The Great Depression was the Great Robbery. War profiteering catalyzed by false flag operations complete the manipulation. Perpetual manipulation: Lusitania, Pearl Harbor (old), Gulf of Tonkin. (You know the rest.)

Explosive: British special operators masquerading as Arabs in Iraq arrested by Iraqi police then broken out of jail by British tanks.

Like the Vietnam war, the Iraq war is meant to be "lost." The middle east is being destroyed by feeding both sides of sectarian violence, which, in turn, is fueled by the original manipulation -- religion?

Like war, the education system has also been engineered to fail. "You had better wake up and understand that there are people who are guiding your life, and you don't even know it."

"One bank. One army. One center of power."

That's what they want. But what do you want?

Theme: No amount of tyranny can overcome the human spirit. It can only destroy itself. The way out of the madness globally is to evolve personally. You have the power. You always did. The power not to be fooled by the illusion of life itself. The ride.

Bottom line: Zeitgeist puts 9/11 in deep context. Builds on some of the best work out there, and goes further. Strongest work to date on 9/11, and doesn't stop with a false sense of powerlessness in the shadow of the so-called ruling elites. The only thing missing is a link to the Disclosure Project, but he ends on the same theme anyway -- that consciousness is a singularity, that a world at war with itself cannot survive.

Props to whoever produced this; only a mountain of work accomplished could yield such an excellent result.

Peter .... Not only props to whoever produced this excellent documentary but props to your reply ... Open minded people are a tad rare on discussions forums such as these... Especially when it comes to seeing , or maybe admitting to the truth about an inside government , false flag operation such as the attacks on 9/11 .

[Len Colby]

Open minded people are a tad rare on discussions forums such as these

LOL “open minded” = “agrees with me”

EDIT - Typo (see below).

Edited August 10, 2007 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

LOL “open minded” = “aggress with me”

Freudian slip comes to mind....

[Duane Daman]

LOL “open minded” = “aggress with me”

Freudian slip comes to mind....

LOL ... Speaking of Len's freudian slip , I found an article about that word .... I don't usually "aggress " with Republicans and have certainly never quoted one before , but this guy certainly knew what he was talking about when he wrote this article in the 2002 .

"Don't Aggress Against Iraq

by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

I was recently asked why I thought it was a bad idea for the President to initiate a war against Iraq. I responded by saying that I could easily give a half a dozen reasons why; and if I took a minute, I could give a full dozen. For starters, here is a half a dozen.

Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.

Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden third world nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security.

Number three, a war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative.

Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese, and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair's prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran.

Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous.

Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibitive. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored. Already we hear cries for resurrecting the authoritarian program of conscription in the name of patriotism, of course.

Could any benefit come from all this warmongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual's right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus, without rejecting internationalism on principle- as we should.

The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today's international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.

The last thing this world needs is the development of more nuclear weapons, as is now being planned in a pretense for ensuring the peace. We would need more than an office of strategic information to convince the world of that.

What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others.

Indeed, we live in challenging and dangerous times."

March 22, 2002

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul23.html

[Len Colby]

LOL “open minded” = “aggress with me”

Freudian slip comes to mind....

To paraphrase the man himself “sometimes a typo is just a typo”. It never would have occurred to me to suggest on any level (conscious or subconscious) that Peter and Duane aggressed either jointly or individually.

As for Ron Paul, I agree with a lot of what he says (as with the essay quoted by Duane) but sometime he strikes me as a nutcase

[Duane Daman]

LOL “open minded” = “aggress with me”

Freudian slip comes to mind....

To paraphrase the man himself “sometimes a typo is just a typo”. It never would have occurred to me to suggest on any level (conscious or subconscious) that Peter and Duane aggressed either jointly or individually.

As for Ron Paul, I agree with a lot of what he says (as with the essay quoted by Duane) but sometime he strikes me as a nutcase

Well , I agree with you that most Republicans are nutcases ... but in the case of this particular "nutcase", the man was dead on accurate about the collosal mess made by Bush and his cronies , when they decided to go to war with a country which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACKS ON 9/11 .

[Len Colby]

It’s url was http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10569

There are no copies (I could find) in the Internet Archive but there is one at Google

http://72.14.209.104/search?sourceid=navcl...owtopic%3D10569

And I have a newer one in my cache which I can send to a moderator or administrator if they so desire.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Perhaps it got shot down Len. I will attempt to locate, and restore it.

[Anthony Thorne]

Peter's book has been released a month early and is now available. It's in stock and shipping from Amazon at the link below.

http://www.amazon.com/Road-11-Wealth-Empir...0767&sr=1-1

[Jack White]

Perhaps it got shot down Len. I will attempt to locate, and restore it.

I too was following this thread. Who removed it?

Jack

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Anthony thanks for the note. I have posted info about it on ten big city daily web sites. Since it is published by U. of Cal. it could appeal to various tweedy people who are worried about being kicked out of the middle class if they read a 9/11 book.

Here is a listing should you want to do some free-lance publicity.

http://www.usnpl.com/

[Jack White]

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

It is reported that you will be meeting with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico at Montebello, P.Q., August 20-21, 2007, to discuss

the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).  I would like to offer you a briefing paper so that there is no doubt in your mind about who it is you are

negotiating with when you negotiate with Mr. Bush.

My name is Steve Beckow and I served your government as a Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board in Vancouver, B.C., until retiring last November.  I

have also served as an Historian at what was then called the National Museum of Man.

I’ve prepared a report on the role of the Bush administration in two events that occurred on September 11, 2001, to demonstrate to you the real and present

danger that faces anyone who enters into an arrangement with the current American administration.

In my opinion, sir, if you allow the SPP to proceed, you will be trading a well-functioning parliamentary government, the uncorrupted legal oversight of one of

the wisest judiciaries in the world, and the state protection of relatively uncorrupted police and military forces for what amounts to a near dictatorship in the

United States, rampant with corruption and headed for national disaster.  The headlines in the Globe and Mail of recent date declare the financial crisis that the

Bush administration and the overextended, debt-ridden U.S. economy are causing around the world. Swallowing up Canada will not help the U.S. or us. It is

probably a good time to be discussing this matter with you. 

It is my fervent hope that, if you consider the allegations and evidence provided here, you may draw back from going further with the SPP and save Canada’s

future.

Sincerely yours,

Steve Beckow

.............

9/11 was a False-Flag Operation of the American Government

What I am furnishing you with here is the evidence behind the allegations that 9/11 was a

false-flag operation orchestrated by officials

of the American government and military, with some of whom you will now be negotiating the

Security and Prosperity Partnership. 

It would take a long report to review the evidence for all five incidents that happened on

September 11, 2001 – the destruction of three

World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon crash, and the Pennsylvania crash.

Would it not be enough, sir, for our purposes if I took just two incidents and showed the

problems with the official story in regard to

them?  If there are these many problems with the official versions of two 9/11 incidents,

would it not be reasonable to expect that there

might be similar problems with the official story about the others?

I have selected the destruction of World Trade Center Tower 7 and the crash at the

Pentagon for your consideration.  I allege that these

two events were part of what the Project for a New American Century called “a new Pearl

Harbor.” (1) 

The motives behind 9/11, as history will judge, were to go to war with Afghanistan, Iraq,

and Iran to secure oil resources and project,

preserve and extend American hegemony in a “New World Order” and a “New American Century.”

World Trade Center Building 7

Very few people remember that, not only did World Trade Center (WTC) Towers 1 and 2 fall

on 9/11, but also WTC Tower 7.

WTC Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were hit by massive amounts of debris from the Twin Towers and

yet they remained standing.   Building 7,

a 48-storey skyscraper, was hit neither by a fuel-laden aircraft nor by falling debris and

yet it came down. 

Larry Silverstein admitted on TV that WTC 7 fell because he told the New York Fire

Department to “pull it.”  “Pulling it” is a

demolition term for bringing a building down by means of a controlled explosion. (2)  If

you watch footage of WTC 7 coming down,

you will see various signatures of a controlled demolition.

In the first place, the middle of the building falls first so that the outside of the

building is drawn symmetrically into the centre and the

entire building collapses into its own footprint. According to San Francisco architect

Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for

9/11 Truth, this pattern of collapse is one signature of a controlled demolition. (3) If

anything else caused the building’s collapse,

according to Gage, it would have fallen asymmetrically.

Moreover, you can see that the building, 48 storeys high, gently collapses at nearly

free-fall speed.  If the building had pancaked, it

would have taken much more time to fall than free-fall speed. Only the insertion of

thousands of thermate cutter charges would account

for a high-rise building falling as quickly as Building 7 did. A collapse at free-fall

speed is another signature of a controlled demolition.

If you observe the photos of Building 7 coming down, you will see the telltale “squibs” or

puffs of white smoke coming out of the

building from cutter charges placed near the exterior columns. These squibs are another signature.

Notice that the Twin Towers appear to collapse from the top down, whereas Building 7

collapses from the bottom up.  Collapsing from

the bottom up is again another signature of a controlled explosion.

You will notice in the videos of 9/11 that, over bullhorns, the fire department tells the

crowd outside Building 7 that it needs to move

back because the building is coming down more than half an hour before the building

collapses.  (4) Given that the building was only

slightly damaged by debris and that the fires inside were not jet-fuel fires, how could

the structural integrity of the building be

threatened?  If the structural integrity was not obviously threatened, how would the fire

department know with certainty that far ahead of

time that the building was about to come down? 

They could only know if their superiors had radioed them and told them the building was

coming down. Their superiors could only

have known if plans had been arranged beforehand to bring the building down by controlled

explosions.  Thus not only did Larry

Silverstein have foreknowledge that the building was to be demolished, but also,

apparently, the command level of the New York fire

department did as well, who Mr. Silverstein says “pulled” the building.  Foreknowledge,

according to architect Gage, is another

signature of a controlled demolition. (5) 

Were there other slip-ups that reveal foreknowledge of the planned demolition of Building

7?  Yes, there were. If you watch the videos

circulating on the Internet, you will see that the BBC announced the fall of Building 7 23

minutes, I believe it was, before it actually

fell.  (6)  When their reporter in New York stands aside in her live report, you can

plainly see Building 7 still standing in the

background.  (7) Who could have known that Building 7 was destined to fall and sent out a

press report to the BBC announcing that

fall before it had actually happened?  If we could determine who authorized that press

report, we would undoubtedly find another

person with foreknowledge.

Brigham Young University professor Steven Jones has found traces of thermate in the

samples he has been able to obtain from

Buildings 1 and 2. (8) No samples of Building 7 exist; all the evidence has been

destroyed.  Please note that only the military has

access to thermate.  If only the military has access to thermate, is it not a reasonable

inference that the military planted the explosives in

Building 7?

One cannot plant thermate cutter charges in a building in an hour or a day. It takes

careful planning to place thousands of them against

the supporting columns in just the pattern that will bring the building down

symmetrically, at freefall speed, into its own footprint. The

necessity for careful planning and placement means that the demolition charges in Building

7 must have been placed some time before

9/11. 

That inference means that nineteen Arab hijackers with box cutters in all probability

could not have arranged for the destruction of

Building 7.  The demolition of that building took the orchestrated efforts of demolitions

experts over a period of time, according to the

testimony of independent civilian demolitions experts, architects, and physicists who have

examined what evidence they could secure

after the government carted the debris (i.e., the evidence) away.

Notice that New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who had his emergency command centre in that

building, did not at any time protest,

lament, or investigate its destruction.

If Building 7 collapsed from fire, which was the official story given out to explain its

collapse, it would be the first reinforced-steel

building in history to have so collapsed – with two exceptions.  Those two exceptions

would be World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2.

(9)

Cui bono?  Who benefited, Mr. Prime Minister?  A lot of corporations and individuals under

investigation by the Securities and

Exchange Commission benefited by the destruction of the SEC investigative files stored in

Building 7. 

Mr. Silverstein benefited by a generous settlement.  In addition to the New York Port

Authority returning him the $125 million he

originally paid for the leases to the WTC buildings, (10) which he bought just weeks

before the collapse, he also settled for $7 billion in

court, a handsome return on his investment. (11)  Incidentally, the insurance was handled

by Marvin Bush, President Bush’s younger

brother, who both worked for the building’s insurers and was also in charge of security at

the World Trade Center at the time of these

events. (12)

Mr. Prime Minister, I have now pointed out to you numerous problems with the official

story and have given you evidence that suggests

that Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, planned some time before

9/11.  This evidence rules out, I believe, the

official story that nineteen hijackers with boxcutters had anything to do with the

destruction of Building 7. 

Let us now look at a second event of 9/11, the destruction of a portion of the Pentagon

allegedly by a Boeing 757 passenger airliner.

 

The Pentagon

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine said of the Pentagon crash:

One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery

Interpretation for Scientific and Technical

Intelligence during the Cold War.  I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from

photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in

the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the

Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit

in that hole.’ So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going

on?  (13A)

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., worked at the Pentagon.  She immediately went out that

day and surveyed the scene.  What she

found shocked her.

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn,

where I stood only minutes after the impact. 

Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of

damage to the Pentagon structure one would

expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof

may also have been apparent to the secretary of

defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the

aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a

"missile". ...

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo

debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the

damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring

at the Pentagon that morning were indeed

looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not

see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had

a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later

collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40

minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight. 

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large

jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one

would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon.  (14)

For Maj. Gen. Stubblebine and Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, no Boeing 757 could  possibly have

flown into the small hole left in the

Pentagon, estimated to be 15-20 feet wide (before the roof collapsed).  But a missile

could have.

Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski saw no marks on the lawn. But, if a Boeing 757 had flown as close to

the ground as the five still frames released

by the authorities indicate, either the engines themselves would have left marks on the

ground or their jetstream would have scorched

the grass as can be seen in the photos of similar crashes. (15) Yet the lawn is

“relatively unmarked.”

Lt. Col Kwiatkowski saw no debris on the lawn.  But, as experts note, two 9-foot-tall,

6-ton engines made of titanium steel would not

have been destroyed by impact with the building and would not have been vaporized by an

1800 degree Fahrenheit jet-fuel fire.

Titanium vaporizes at 2800 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures did not reach the level where

the engines or the aircraft would have been

“vaporized.” (16)

Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army, has stated:

As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO

of a turbine engineering company, I

can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of

the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would

be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire.  Wrecked,

yes, but not destroyed.  Where are all of

those engines, particularly at the Pentagon?  If jet powered aircraft crashed on

9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly,

would be there. (17)

Not only are the engines not to be seen. But, as photos taken at the time show, there are

no pieces of the tail section, wings, seats,

luggage, or bodies strewn on the Pentagon lawn. (18)

The only piece of debris to be found in photos taken immediately after the disaster is an

engine piece lying beside a fireman. 

BridgeStone Media Group contacted Rolls Royce, the engine-makers, who said that the part

was not a piece from any Rolls-Royce

engine they knew of. (19)  But the piece was small enough to be from a guided missile.

When interviewed, emergency workers who went inside the building said that they did not

see any jet wreckage there. (20) 

How can this total lack of debris be possible?  It has not happened on any other crash

site that I’ve ever heard of, no matter how

catastrophic the crash, with the exception of the jet that plunged into the Florida everglades.

Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski also looked at the building itself and saw less damage than she would

have expected. If a Boeing 757 had gone

into it, there would have been entry marks for the engines, wings and tail structure

exactly as there were on WTC Tower 2.  

Windows would have blown out upon the entry of engines, wings, and tail section. But you

can plainly see from the photos of the

Pentagon, as shown in videos like 9:11: In Plane Site: no windows have been blown out

adjacent to the small entry hole.

If the fire was so hot that it vaporized the aircraft, why are there wooden desks and a

paper book still standing on the floors adjacent to

the entry of the plane?  Why is there one report of a woman and her child crawling out

through the hole after the blast?  Where is the

flaming inferno? It is not there.

Moreover, if a jet airliner had smashed into the Pentagon loaded with jet fuel, it would

have caused a huge ecological catastrophe,

according to an environmental specialist.

Miss Therese Aigner, a certified environmental specialist, and a member of the

Environmental Assessment Association sent

[bridgeStone Media Group, makers of 9:11: in Plane Site] the following letter after

a brief conversation we had on the

telephone. She had said to us, “that the amount of fuel that would’ve been left in

the aircraft that had hit the Pentagon would

basically have reduced that section of the Pentagon to rubble, and would have burned

for days.” And that “8600 gallons of fuel

had a BTU rate of 86 million.” She also stated that, “looking at the total weight of

this aircraft in conjunction with its velocity,

the Pentagon should’ve been reduced to the thickness of a pancake. Also the fuel

spill of 8600 gallons would have posed a very

large soil removal and disposal project; since the contaminated soil would be

considered HAZARDOUS WASTE under Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” (21)

In fact, there is no evidence of an oil spill.  No section of the Pentagon was reduced to

the thickness of a pancake, though an explosion

reduced a small, discrete area to rubble.

If we turn to the evidence of the flight data recorder that the plane went into a tight

descent and turn before skimming the ground to hit

the building, more questions arise. The flying instructor who worked with Hani Hanjour,

the alleged hijacker pilot of Flight 77, thought

the man was only average at flying a Cessna and said that he, the flight instructor, had

trouble imagining him flying a 757 at any

altitude, never mind the way the Pentagon “plane” was flown. (22)

Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret), reports that even a well-trained pilot would have had

great difficulty flying a passenger jet the

way the 757 was said to have been flown into the Pentagon.

The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000

feet.  And a commercial aircraft, while they can

in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver … are very, very, very

difficult.  And it would take considerable training.  In

other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is

for comfort and for passengers and … not for

military maneuvers.  And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes

some very, very talented pilots to do that.

(23)

Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski referred to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s unfortunate remark

that it was a guided missile that hit the

Pentagon. Mr. Rumsfeld made that comment to Parade Magazine:

Here we’re talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight

filled with our citizens, and the missile to

damage this building [the Pentagon], and similar [inaudible] that damaged the World

Trade Center. (24) [Emphasis added.]

I am quite sure that it was unintentional on Secretary Rumsfeld’s part to say that a

missile struck the Pentagon.  The remark is on a par

with President Bush’s statement when asked what he thought when he saw the plane crashes.

The President said he saw the TV report

of a plane hitting the North Tower when he went into the Florida class room on the morning

of September 11 and thought that the pilot

in question must have been a pretty poor pilot.

Mr. Bush could not have watched the crash into the North Tower on television on September

11 because the first footage of it was not

aired on television until September 12. (25) What footage did the President see? Why did

he continue with his visit to a Florida

classroom if he knew that there had been such an unprecedented disaster at the World Trade

Center unless continuing with his visit was

part of a plan?

If we look at the flight of American Airlines 77 before it reached the Pentagon area, more

problems arise. How could a Boeing 757 fly

through the most-protected air space in America and hit the allegedly best-protected

structure – the Pentagon?  The official story says

that the FAA was asleep.

But Boston Center air traffic controller Robin Hordon, who was present most of the day on

9/11, said that air traffic controllers knew by

around 8:30 a.m. that they were watching an emergency unfold.  He was on duty on September

11 and asserted that it would have been

standard procedure for the air traffic controller involved to phone NORAD sector control

and ask them: “What do you see?” (26)

In addition to NORAD inaction, Hordon states that the Pentagon did not answer its phone in

response to FAA emergency calls:

And it was acknowledged by the terrible tapes … the insufficient tapes and testimony

that was presented to the 9/11

Commission … that indeed the [FAA] system [across the United States] was alerted so

everybody knew. …

The problem was because of the hijacking protocol that was now [in] place ... and

this is what happens … you get these

circumstances that you’re not particularly familiar with [and] you break out your

books.  When you break out your books [you

find that] the system now had to make some phone calls into … let’s call it …

Rummy’s Pentagon.  And Rummy’s Pentagon is

the one that would then make the decision.

Well, Rummy’s Pentagon on American [Flight] 11 didn’t answer the phone. Neither [on

Flight] 175: didn’t answer the phone.

I maintain they didn’t answer the phone until they absolutely were embarrassed into

answering the phone somewhere along the

flight of United 93 and American 77. Our first formal contact was at this particular

time. (27)

Hordon said that he knew quite soon on September 11 that he was watching a false-flag operation.

I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on

my 11-year experience as an FAA Air

Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of

training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude

bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training

exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with

NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight

emergency situations, including two

instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally: There is

absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners

could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being

intercepted and shot completely out of the sky

by our jet fighters unless very highly-placed people in our government and our

military wanted it to happen. (28)

Of NORAD’s performance, former NORAD Tactical Director Capt. Daniel Davis says:

There is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights

are IFR) would not be intercepted when they

deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication

with Air Traffic Control.  No way!  With very

bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but, no, there's no way all four of them could! (29)

Only through official connivance and military cooperation could these events have happened.

Transportation Secretary Normal Mineta revealed that connivance in his testimony to the

9/11 Commission.  He said that

Vice-President Cheney knew an incoming target was going to hit the Pentagon and allowed it

to happen:

Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission: I wanted to focus just for a moment on

the Presidential Emergency Operating

Center.   You were there a good part of the day. I think you were there with the

Vice-President?  And we had that order given, I

think it was by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial

aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by

terrorists.  Were you there when that order was given?

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta: No I was not. I was made aware of it during

the time that the airplane [was] coming

into the Pentagon.

There was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice-President: “The plane is

fifty miles out.”  “The plane is thirty

miles out.” And when he got down to the plane is ten miles out, the young man also

said to the Vice-President, “Do the orders

still stand?” The Vice-President turned and whipped his neck around and said: “Of

course the orders still stand. Have you

heard anything to the contrary?”

At the time I didn’t know what all that meant.

Hamilton: The flight you’re referring to is?

Mineta: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in

listening to the conversation that took place

between the young man and the Vice-President … at the time I did not really

recognize the significance of that. And then later

on I heard the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to

DC.  But those planes were still about ten

minutes away.

And so then at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania.

Then I thought, oh, my God, did we shoot it

down? Then we had to, with the Vice-President, go to the Pentagon to check that

[building] out. (30)

You will remember that Vice-President Cheney later said that he had not arrived at the

Presidential Emergency Operating Center until

10:00 a.m. that morning, but Transportation Secretary Mineta’s testimony places him there

at 9:25 a.m., the time when Mineta himself

arrived, prior to the “plane” hitting the Pentagon. 

Is Vice-President Cheney lying? If so, for what purpose? To cover up that a missile fired

from a military jet struck the Pentagon? To

hide the fact that the hit on the Pentagon was a false-flag operation? These are the

people you will be dealing with around the SPP, Mr.

Prime Minister.

Is it not coincidental that two air force drills were being held that day, one that drew

many fighters off to Canada and the other that

simulated an attack on buildings, including the very World Trade Center that was under

attack in real time?  I’m sure you will notice

the parallel with the later London bombings, where an emergency drill was underway at the

very time that the tube stations were

“under attack.” As with 9/11, the London emergency drills focused on the very tube

stations that were actually attacked.  Are these not

profound coincidences?

Is it not strange that Flight 77 had its transponder turned off but was flashing a

“friendly” signal?  How would Hani Hanjour, who

could barely fly a Cessna, know how or why to turn off a transponder and turn on a

friendly signal?  (31)

What was under the large blue tarp that several military personnel carried away from the

site – the remains of a missile?  Why is it

being removed rather than being examined in situ? Where did it disappear to?

If you study some of the still shots of the Pentagon issued after the crash, you will see

unidentified personnel in white shirts and

polished patent leather black shoes (obviously not firefighters or emergency personnel)

carrying away the smallish plane parts that were

supposedly found on the Pentagon lawn. Why are non-emergency personnel touching, let alone

removing, evidence? Why have those

parts never surfaced as part of an airplane crash investigation?

At every other airplane disaster, the wreckage is completely rebuilt. If I am correct,

Flight 800 was reassembled and it was recovered

from under the sea. Why was the wreckage of the “airplane” that crashed into the Pentagon

never reassembled, but instead carted away

never to be seen again? Where is the black box from the aircraft? 

Why did the FBI confiscate the security footage taken by the Citgo gas station  and the

Sheraton hotel opposite the Pentagon and not

release them?  Why did the FBI release only five frames of still pictures none of which is

conclusive when the Pentagon has a large

number of closed-circuit TV cameras mounted around it and facing out?  (32)

I will stop here, Mr. Prime Minister. 

If this were an active criminal investigation, sir, and of course no such thorough

criminal investigation was ever held, my raising perhaps

three, perhaps four objections of this gravity would be enough to cause an investigator to

stop and ask him or herself, “Well, yes, why

are there these discrepancies?”

But I have offered you a very large number of discrepancies on only two of the five

incidents that happened that day.  I could offer you

more on these two incidents or many new objections if we looked at the Twin Towers and

Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

These then are the officials you will be sitting across the table from at Montebello,

individuals who may be responsible for causing the

death of 3,000 of their own citizens on September 11, 2001.  If it happened in Canada,

they would be charged with murder and treason. 

They now desire to swallow up Canada in their thirst for world hegemony – a “New World Order.”

Mr. Prime Minister, please draw back.  Do not have anything to do with authorities who

would kill their own citizens and start a war

that has killed over half a million others. Do not wed our interests to a nation bent on a

nuclear war with Iran and ultimately  a nuclear

confrontation with Russia and China.

The fate of Canada rests with you, sir.  History will know the facts. They cannot be

hidden. Please defend our country from the designs

of the Bush administration.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Jack White

[Peter McKenna]

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

It is reported that you will be meeting with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico at Montebello, P.Q., August 20-21, 2007, to discuss the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). I would like to offer you a briefing paper so that there is no doubt in your mind about who it is you are negotiating with when you negotiate with Mr. Bush.

<snip by mod - no need to repeat verbatim quotes, especially when they are very long>

The fate of Canada rests with you, sir. History will know the facts. They cannot be hidden. Please defend our country from the designs of the Bush administration.

This is just a rehash of the same 9/11 Truther claims which can be found on any of the 'Truther' sites on the internet.

Is this diatribe suddenly credible because it comes from a 'Former Canadian Official'?

I googled Steve Beckow and found the 'ImpeachSpace' site which (stated in the tagline) he started. It is dedicated to impeaching Bush. My guess is he is a Canadian citizen. So this former Canadian 'official' is corresponding to the Canadian Prime Minister, identifying that the US government murdered thousands of it's citizens (via 9/11), citing as his proof the evidence currently espoused at many (most if not all) existing 'Truther' sites on the Internet, and is hosting a site calling for the impeachment of the US President.

Is that correct? Correct me if I have any facts wrong here.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Evan Burton
Removed main text of quote; no need to repeat extra long posts

[Jack White]

Why should IMPEACH BUSH activities make facts less credible?

He has made a good presentation of REASONS to impeach Bush.

And what is this phrase TRUTHER? Why is someone seeking TRUTH

considered a nut? The logic escapes me.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

 Correct me if I have any facts wrong here.

During the Second World War there was lots of intelligence of the Holocaust, but those in power in the US and England chose to keep to the fiction that it was fiction...even despite the pleas of one famous escaped concentration camp victim with evidence. The truth is the truth no matter how many times you deny it or pretend not to see the Emperor's 'New' Clothes. Much information repeats and many persons [myself included] are alarmed

to the maximum at

what we feel is clear evidence of a false-flag operation a la the Reichstag fire or Gulf of Tonkin or Guernica or supposed Polish attack on Germany, Trojan Horse.....etc. Belieeve what you want and make-believe all you want because it is perhaps too frightening for you to even conte

m

plate. I think history will

show 9-11 offical version as much a fiction as the 11-22-63 official version and sharing many features as to motivation and general forces behind them. So, I say SAY IT AGAIN AND LOUDER....EVERY SHOUT COUNTS! Thanks Jack. Sorry, you Peter haven't seen the light yet on 9-11. May you soon. The other thing this 'repeat' shows is the fear all around the world at what is going on in the US. I'm in Europe and I hear it every day...and meet more and more Americans hunting for a new place to live....out of fear and disgust. If only those valiant efforts to convince those who pretended not to see the Holocaust had been moved...or the warnings on Dallas....or some who say another 9-11 is coming if this is all not dealt with

IMMEDIATELY! It is time to sound the alarm and not put one's head in the sand.

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

Sorry but I can not accept the hypothesis that the Government willingly and premeditatively murdered thousands of US citizens. Even if the intent had existed, I do not believe that a conspricay on such a scale (my own brother saw the plane hit WTC 2) could have been accomplished, in secrecy, and involving so many. I do believe that facets of 9/11 are extremely suspicious and some sort of coverup was involved, but I do not subscribe to the 'inside job' POV.

Not only do I believe using the 9/11 events as grounds for impeachment as ludicrous, I resent that a Canadian citizen is 'stumping' (via openly camaigning on the internet) for the impeachment of a US President. I guess I must remain relegated to the ranks of the oblivious.