Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Sid Walker]

Well Sid,

First of all your discussing Bldg. 7 and the ridiculous time stamp - reporting of the bldg. collapse as though this is indicative of a high level conspiracy by the US Governemnt to assasinate thousands of Americans.

I don't buy it!

Please re-read George Monbiot's post, that will pretty well sum up the way I feel about the so called "Truthers" screaming conspriacy over 9/11.

Also you need to lighten up a little, if you can't take a little harmless tongue in cheek criticism, becauase that is what it was.

There are conditions afoot which do merit quite a bit of concern for me though, but trying to bolster the 9/11 "Loose Change" theories and the conspiracy angle isn't one of them, that's just my opinion.

Thanks, Peter.

If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it.

I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view!

I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke.

Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing.

Apparently,

Maybe my sense of humor is a little warped. I'll go along with that.

Anyway, I believe that the BBC's jouornalistic integrity was exposed to be weak when they were caught taping a newsclip of the WTC 7 collapse before the fact. I don't believe the collapse was in doubt at that point but the typical reporter's gambit is to "scoop" his rivals and any tactic short of actually producing the event is used.

I think they knew #7 was going to be "Pulled" and scooped everybody as is their wont.

So what?

If someone knew the building was going to be "helped" to collapse to ensure the safety of surroundng bldgs. etc. what does that signify?

A tempest in a teapot.

So Peter

In your latest theory, you accept that WTC-7 was 'pulled' (demolished deliberately).

But you don't think that's a big deal.

No matter that two ifficial inquiries have overlooked the topic.

"So what?" is your latest tack.

May I ask, Peter, how long you think it takes to rig a 47-storey building for demolition so it collapses as perfectly as

?

Do you think the explosives were set on the afternoon of 9/11? (I suggest a moment's reflection would tell you that's impossible)

Or do you think the building was pre-rigged with explosives?

If so, when and on whose authority?

Do you now claim it's normal for large tower blocks in NYC to be pre-rigged with explosives?

Edited March 3, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Peter McKenna]

Well Sid,

First of all your discussing Bldg. 7 and the ridiculous time stamp - reporting of the bldg. collapse as though this is indicative of a high level conspiracy by the US Governemnt to assasinate thousands of Americans.

I don't buy it!

Please re-read George Monbiot's post, that will pretty well sum up the way I feel about the so called "Truthers" screaming conspriacy over 9/11.

Also you need to lighten up a little, if you can't take a little harmless tongue in cheek criticism, becauase that is what it was.

There are conditions afoot which do merit quite a bit of concern for me though, but trying to bolster the 9/11 "Loose Change" theories and the conspiracy angle isn't one of them, that's just my opinion.

Thanks, Peter.

If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it.

I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view!

I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke.

Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing.

Apparently,

Maybe my sense of humor is a little warped. I'll go along with that.

Anyway, I believe that the BBC's jouornalistic integrity was exposed to be weak when they were caught taping a newsclip of the WTC 7 collapse before the fact. I don't believe the collapse was in doubt at that point but the typical reporter's gambit is to "scoop" his rivals and any tactic short of actually producing the event is used.

I think they knew #7 was going to be "Pulled" and scooped everybody as is their wont.

So what?

If someone knew the building was going to be "helped" to collapse to ensure the safety of surroundng bldgs. etc. what does that signify?

A tempest in a teapot.

So Peter

In your latest theory, you accept that WTC-7 was 'pulled' (demolished deliberately).

But you don't think that's a big deal.

No matter that two ifficial inquiries have overlooked the topic.

"So what?" is your latest tack.

May I ask, Peter, how long you think it takes to rig a 47-storey building for demolition so it collapses as perfectly as

?

Do you think the explosives were set on the afternoon of 9/11? (I suggest a moment's reflection would tell you that's impossible)

Or do you think the building was pre-rigged with explosives?

If so, when and on whose authority?

Do you now claim it's normal for large tower blocks in NYC to be pre-rigged with explosives?

I didn't say it was rigged with exposives.

There may be many ways to "help" a building to collapse such that it is far safer than an uncontrolled collapse.

Likely the legal quagmire would make it impossible to perfrom this type of tactic openly, but thats just a guess on my part.

Look, in all seriousness - I was born in NYC.

My brother was four blocks away when the first plane hit, he saw much of the remaining events.

My sister in law knew people killed on 9/11.

I take it very seriously. I do not take much of the "truther" movement seriously. In fact I find the attempt by the producers of loose change to capitalize on 9/11 to be heinous. So I'd rather tread on that issue lightly, because it would be rather easy to become enraged by some of that.

Trying to rewind events from the collapse of WTC 7 to prove that a major conspiracy exists is exactly like trying to push a rope up a cat's ass.

I don't think it was a government conspiracy, although there may have been some aspects which have been covered up, probably to prevent embarrassment or preclude some kind of legal entanglements.

But not for a moment do I believe the government assasinated 3000+ people on 9/11.

[Sid Walker]

But not for a moment do I believe the government assasinated 3000+ people on 9/11.

Peter

Have you read earlier material posted about 9/11 to this forum?

I ask, because you seem to re-introduce the same red herrings, despite their being previously answered.

No one that I know in their right minds thinks "the government" (which Government?") orchestrated 9/11.

The government ain't that smart... and its processes are largely open and very leaky.

Elements within government at various levels, on the other hand, must have been involved if, as I and millions of others believe, the 9/11 attacks were Zionist false flag operations.

[Peter McKenna]

But not for a moment do I believe the government assasinated 3000+ people on 9/11.

Peter

Have you read earlier material posted about 9/11 to this forum?

I ask, because you seem to re-introduce the same red herrings, despite their being previously answered.

No one that I know in their right minds thinks "the government" (which Government?") orchestrated 9/11.

The government ain't that smart... and its processes are largely open and very leaky.

Elements within government at various levels, on the other hand, must have been involved if, as I and millions of others believe, the 9/11 attacks were Zionist false flag operations.

You and millions of others think it was a Zionist false flag operation?

Please show me a reference to that piece of information. I have read maybe a couple of two x two off articles mentioning somehting like that...

So you are seriously conteneding the Israelis or their US Zionist handlers orchestrated 9/11...

Like I said ... The moon will be blood red this saturday ... The apocalypse is nigh..

[Sid Walker]

But not for a moment do I believe the government assasinated 3000+ people on 9/11.

Peter

Have you read earlier material posted about 9/11 to this forum?

I ask, because you seem to re-introduce the same red herrings, despite their being previously answered.

No one that I know in their right minds thinks "the government" (which Government?") orchestrated 9/11.

The government ain't that smart... and its processes are largely open and very leaky.

Elements within government at various levels, on the other hand, must have been involved if, as I and millions of others believe, the 9/11 attacks were Zionist false flag operations.

You and millions of others think it was a Zionist false flag operation?

Please show me a reference to that piece of information. I have read maybe a couple of two x two off articles mentioning somehting like that...

So you are seriously conteneding the Israelis or their US Zionist handlers orchestrated 9/11...

Like I said ... The moon will be blood red this saturday ... The apocalypse is nigh..

I don't mean to be rude, Peter, but I decline the opportunity for further "9/11 for beginners" debate with someone who is so gleefully unfamiliar with the most basic relevant reading material.

I suggest you re-read some of the threads on this forum, starting with this one.

[Sid Walker]

A day old but spot on, IMO (emphases added)

The 911 Script and the Age of Terror

Wednesday February 28th, 2007

I must admit that I have been deeply shocked by a story that appeared today on my website, to the effect that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 23 minutes before it actually took place. Previously, the BBC claimed that it had lost all of its 9/11 coverage, but this video has now surfaced. I watched it myself, and sat there with my blood literally running cold as I saw their reporter saying that Building 7 had collapsed while it was still visible behind her, perfectly intact.

Now, why wasn't this just a simple mistake? CNN was reporting rumors that Building 7 might be about to collapse an hour before it happened.

But the BBC reporter is clearly seen reading from a teleprompter. Obviously, she was reading something written on it, and not making up what would have then seemed to be a wild tale. In other words, she was reading a script, and that script had been put up on her teleprompter early. Not only that, she was sitting in front of a live image of the still-intact Building 7.

Somebody wrote that script and did so while Building 7 was still standing. How could they know that it would collapse, even if it was unstable, even if there was a fire in the cellars?

No, the author of the script did not think the building had collapsed. He knew that it would, and the statement was read early as a miscue.

If the BBC had not lost the video of that entire day, it would be easier to believe that this was some sort of a mistake. But the idea that an organization like the BBC, which prides itself on the record it keeps, would lose an entire day of some of the most historic footage it has ever shot is just very difficult to believe. It seems more likely that there was something on that footage that they wanted to bury.

As, indeed, there was.

I have long since abandoned the US media as a lost cause. Thank God we have the internet, because the American press are just a bunch of whores, frankly. I spent 45 minutes yesterday with CNN Headline News today, looking for news of Iran. 31 of those minutes were spent on Anna Nicole Smith, and the rest was fluff.

Pravda did better during the height of the Soviet Union. At least it didn’t insult the intelligence of its readers, but only bored them with its obvious lies. The American media goes it one better, by ignoring the real news and running the silly stuff. And the papers that should be doing better, such as the New York Times, have been singing the "no conspiracy here" song since the days of the Kennedy assassination. Because of what appears to be an almost surrealistic belief that people cannot do bad things in concert, they missed Watergate. And they are missing 9/11 as well. They all are, and, in the end, they will be abandoned by the public because their silence and refusal to investigate are, in effect, lies spoken without words on behalf of what is coming to seem a devastating and widespread conspiracy against the lives of thousands of people, against western civilization and against human freedom at the deepest level.

At present, virtually every street in Britain is watched by video, and there is a bill on its way into parliament that will ban public photography. Can you imagine, not being able to take a picture outdoors? What madness is this, what evil insanity? But it's real, and it doesn't end in Britain. Last October, without debate and in the dead of the night, the president was given the power by language buried in the budget bill to use the military as a police force within the United States, and to nationalize the National Guard without consulting governors. In other words, the Posse Cometatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807 were usurped without a single word of debate and without the least whisper from the American press.

To its credit, the New York Times did pick up on this story recently, reporting the event on February 19, many months after it happened. But why wait? These two acts are cornerstones of American freedom, but they have gone the way of habeas corpus, sacrificed to what now appears to be a self-generated war on terror, the purpose of which could not be more clear: it is not to protect us, it is to take away our freedom and turn this country into a dictatorship, and its little sisters the United Kingdom and Australia into the bargain.

And the scale of the thing is terrifying. If the BBC was reading a script, as it must have been, then they were all reading scripts, and not one reporter has come forward, not one editor, and there is not a breath of suggestion in the 9/11 Commission report that any such thing might have been happening.

And yet, one cannot forget that there was substantial trading in puts on the stock of insurance companies and airlines prior to 9/11, and that some of this trading was traced to individuals who had been associated with the CIA, as Jim Marrs reports in the Terror Conspiracy.

One also cannot forget that Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission that the National Security Council was blindsided by the attack, even as the 11 memos warning of it that the FAA sent to her while she was its chairman were classified until after the last presidential election.

How long can this go on? How much more can we stand? I find it utterly fantastic that conservatives are not outraged about the usurpation of Posse Cometatus and the Insurrection Act, and the attack on habeas corpus, not to mention the wholesale use of torture and atrocity as a matter of national policy.

The Bush presidency is a burnt-out rump, it would seem, reduced to this odd recent practice of sending its officials into harm’s way in the apparent hope that any misfortune befalling them will gain it some sympathy, even as the president prepares for the future by buying a large estate in Paraguay. (However, he might have done a little more research about that country before he bought, given that the Colorado Party, which has been in power since it was set up by Nazi sympathizers and German immigrants in 1947, is now facing a serious threat from Msgr. Fernando Lugo Méndez, a populist bishop who is likely to win the next general election.)

And then there is the terrifying prospect that another 9/11 will take place, but this time one so terrible that we will all desperately cleave to authority in the hope of preserving our lives, no matter who we think might be responsible. Anything less than a nuclear attack on one or more American cities would drive Bush from office, because it would reveal his entire anti-terrorism apparatus for the gimcrack sham that it is.

And when I say sham, I mean sham. Right now, they are just getting around to installing equipment that would detect nuclear weapons being brought, for example, into the Port of Los Angeles—equipment that should and could have been in place every American port six months after 9/11.

So it's perfectly possible that nuclear weapons are already in our cities, and have been there for years. As the Bush presidency winds down, the only real question is, will they be used to bring the American people to heel, or will he choose the Paraguay option?

I used to believe that the Administration let 9/11 happen so that it could have an excuse to attack Iraq and destroy our freedoms. Condoleeza Rice ignored the FAA warnings because she knew that an attack would transform an unpopular president into a beloved leader—which it did...for a time.

Given this latest piece of news, I think that anybody who seriously thinks that the whole event wasn't carefully planned and fed to us as a scripted "news event" needs to have their head examined. It was planned, period. Otherwise this reporter wouldn’t have been announcing one of the disasters before it happened. It's inescapable.

This gets me to a subject I have been visiting for years, the Valerie Plame affair. As I write this, a Washington jury is deciding the fate of Administration scapegoat Lewis Libby. If he is convicted, it will be for lying to a grand jury and to the FBI, not for the real crime, which was revealing the agent in the first place. And, presumably, that will be an end to the matter.

But, hold on, it might be something similar to Condi Rice’s ignoring those FAA memos. How, you may ask? This is how: Valerie Plame was a non-official cover, which is a CIA officer working abroad outside of the diplomatic context. She was an "energy consultant" for a front company called Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was allegedly involved in, among other places, Iran. Shortly after she was 'outed,' there were brief stories here and there in the media to the effect that US intelligence in Iran had been compromised. Of course, the moment the Iranians discovered that the Brewster Jennings employees in that country were actually US agents, they would all have been rounded up.

Given the extraordinary fact that 9/11 now appears almost certainly to have been pre-scripted and therefore planned, dare we ask the question: was Valerie Plame's name revealed IN ORDER TO destroy our intelligence apparatus in Iran?

This would put out our intelligence eyes in a very crucial respect. It would make it impossible for us to find the vents and air intakes of buried Iranian nuclear facilities, meaning that we cannot send conventional bunker buster bombs down those points of access. As Iran has buried and hardened its crucial facilities against any conventional attack except one that uses those weak points, we have been left helpless. There is only one type of weapon available to us that will certainly disrupt the centrifuges crucial to the manufacture of U-235. They must be shaken so hard that they break, and right now the only weapon in any western arsenal that will guarantee this without causing massive collateral damage is a neutron bomb.

So, if somebody has been spoiling for a nuclear war--dare I say in hopes of inducing the Rapture--then the destruction of US intelligence capabilities in Iran would be the best possible way to gain that result. And the leaking of Valerie Plame's name might have been what would get that job done.

Too conspiratorial, Mr. Reporter? Time to snort derision at the internet nut? YOU do your homework--but of course you won't, because you report to an editor who is telling you to turn up your nose, and if you fight back, you'll lose your job. And as for that editor--who calls the shots in his life?

Well, that's easy, because we're now down to about twenty high-level managers across the whole American press! The outrageous flaunting of the Sherman Anti-Trust act over the past few years has enabled this situation to be engineered.

So, do we have a free media? Of course not. And will they continue to march to the tune of higher powers? Certainly they will.

And the situation is dangerous right now. It is very dangerous. A few days ago the president of Iran announced that his country would not stop its nuclear weapons program. Middle Eastern elements threatened devastating retaliation if Iran is attacked.

If it is attacked, and the attack is nuclear, then I fear that we can expect a nuclear attack in the United States, from a bomb or bombs that have been put in place, or allowed to be put in place, by our nation's enemies, who, I believe, are shockingly close to home.

If you want to know what will happen after that—well, I suggest you read the script.

[Matthew Lewis]

But the idea that an organization like the BBC, which prides itself on the record it keeps, would lose an entire day of some of the most historic footage it has ever shot is just very difficult to believe. It seems more likely that there was something on that footage that they wanted to bury.

Just checking here, is this the same BBC that has lost years worth of "Doctor Who"?

Is it impossible for the footage to have been misplaced?

Why would anyone in their right mind give a script out that a building has collapsed that intends to do it purposely and secretly? Does that really make any sense? Any sense at all? Wouldn't it just be easier to let the news agencies find out on their own and report it? Isn't it just way more likely that the BBC either got bad info or misinterpreted the reports that said it looked like it would collapse?

[Sid Walker]

But the idea that an organization like the BBC, which prides itself on the record it keeps, would lose an entire day of some of the most historic footage it has ever shot is just very difficult to believe. It seems more likely that there was something on that footage that they wanted to bury.

Just checking here, is this the same BBC that has lost years worth of "Doctor Who"?

Is it impossible for the footage to have been misplaced?

Why would anyone in their right mind give a script out that a building has collapsed that intends to do it purposely and secretly? Does that really make any sense? Any sense at all? Wouldn't it just be easier to let the news agencies find out on their own and report it? Isn't it just way more likely that the BBC either got bad info or misinterpreted the reports that said it looked like it would collapse?

I would have thought that precognition is more in the line of "miracles" than "bad info".

As to the scripting of 9-11, I suggest you pass on your suggestions to the organizers of this rather obvious false flag operation.

[Matthew Lewis]

Again, all I'm saying is it doesn't make any sense at all to hand out a script of the events. None. It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. But we do have evidence that news agencies report wrong info or misinterpret info all the time. Just yesterday I was watching the news all morning concerning the tonados in Alabama. Multiple times within the same sentence they would report different numbers of students that had died. Within the same sentence. And this didn't just happen once. It happened multiple times throughout the day. They were reporting numbers from multiple sources even if they contradicted with each other. There were never any retraction made and no explanations offered.

For WTC 7 it wouldn't take precognition. It would just take a quick misinterpretation of the few facts that were available. There were reports from earlier in the day that the people on the scene were worried the building was going to collapse. There were reports of the building leaning and a multistory bulge. Can you prove they didn't just get a report saying they were worried the buildin was going to collapse and misreported it as has collapsed? That requires a much lesser leap of logic than somebody was trying to demolish it secretly and did the incredibly stupid thing of telling multiple people beforehand.

[Sid Walker]

Again, all I'm saying is it doesn't make any sense at all to hand out a script of the events. None. It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. But we do have evidence that news agencies report wrong info or misinterpret info all the time. Just yesterday I was watching the news all morning concerning the tonados in Alabama. Multiple times within the same sentence they would report different numbers of students that had died. Within the same sentence. And this didn't just happen once. It happened multiple times throughout the day. They were reporting numbers from multiple sources even if they contradicted with each other. There were never any retraction made and no explanations offered.

For WTC 7 it wouldn't take precognition. It would just take a quick misinterpretation of the few facts that were available. There were reports from earlier in the day that the people on the scene were worried the building was going to collapse. There were reports of the building leaning and a multistory bulge. Can you prove they didn't just get a report saying they were worried the buildin was going to collapse and misreported it as has collapsed? That requires a much lesser leap of logic than somebody was trying to demolish it secretly and did the incredibly stupid thing of telling multiple people beforehand.

Voltaire's comment is fresh today as 240 years ago:

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

Aghanistan, Camp X-Ray, Iraq, Palestine, the Lebanon...

[Brian Smith]

Personally, I prefer this video from an actual demolition expert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOG3g-mOXU

I also listen to my brother, who is a civil engineer with a phd. I place a lot more credibility in their level of study.

John

The demolition expert, in the video you linked to, believes that building 7 was undoubtedly a controlled demolition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0...ted&search=

Its [sic] so obviously a controlled demolition as to be almost comical. How did they execute such a magnificent controlled implosion in just the few hours given them that day?

Edited March 4, 2007 by Brian Smith

[Michael Hogan]

Triple Cross: How bin Laden's Master Spy Penetrated the CIA, the Green Berets, and the FBI - and Why Patrick Fitzgerald Failed to Stop Him

by Peter Lance

On C-span2 BookTv

Peter Lance discusses what he describes as the incompetence of the FBI and Justice Department before 9/11. In "Triple Cross" the author looks at the infiltration of the CIA and FBI by Al Qaeda agent Ali Mohamed. Mr. Lance argues that by posiing as an FBI informant, Ali Mohamed was able to lead a double life for nearly two decades. All efforts to stop him, including efforts by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, failed.

Author Bio: Peter Lance is an Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter and the author of "1000 Years for Revenge," "Cover Up" and the novel "First Degree Burn." He is a former correspondent for ABC News and has covered hundreds of stories worldwide for 20/20, Nightline, and World News Tonight. For more information, visit: peterlance.com.

http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?se...amp;schedID=478

Book Description from Amazon:

"This is the most dangerous man I have ever met. We cannot let this man out on the street."

—Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, 1997

In the years leading to the 9/11 attacks, no single agent of al Qaeda was more successful in compromising the U.S. intelligence community than Ali Mohamed. A former Egyptian army captain, Mohamed succeeded in infiltrating the CIA in Europe, the Green Berets at Fort Bragg, and the FBI in California—even as he helped to orchestrate the al Qaeda campaign of terror that culminated in 9/11. As investigative reporter Peter Lance demonstrates in this gripping narrative, senior U.S. law enforcement officials—including the now-celebrated U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who personally interviewed Mohamed long before he was brought to ground—were powerless to stop him. In the annals of espionage, few men have moved between the hunters and the hunted with as much audacity as Ali Mohamed. For almost two decades, the former Egyptian army commando succeeded in living a double life. Brazenly slipping past watch lists, he moved in and out of the U.S. with impunity, marrying an American woman, becoming a naturalized citizen, and posing as an FBI informant—all while acting as chief of security for Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Known to his fellow terrorists as Ali Amiriki, or "Ali the American," Mohamed gained access to the most sensitive intelligence in the U.S. counterterrorism arsenal while brokering terror summits, planning bombing missions, and training jihadis in bomb building, assassination, the creation of sleeper cells, and other acts of espionage.Building on the investigation he first chronicled in his previous books, 1000 Years for Revenge and Cover Up, Lance uses Mohamed to trace the untold story of al Qaeda's rise in the 1980s and 1990s. Incredibly, Mohamed, who remains in custodial witness protection today, has never been sentenced for his crimes. He exists under a veil of secrecy—a living witness to how the U.S. intelligence community was outflanked for years by the terror network.

From his first appearance on the FBI's radar in 1989—training Islamic extremists on Long Island—to his presence in the database of Operation Able Danger eighteen months before 9/11, this devious triple agent was the one terrorist they had to sweep under the rug. Filled with news-making revelations, Triple Cross exposes the incompetence and duplicity of the FBI and Justice Department before 9/11 . . . and raises serious questions about how many more secrets the Feds may still be hiding.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060886889/cspanA

Edited March 4, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Ron Ecker]

I guess this is the book to read on incompetence theory. I question how much Bin Laden was involved in 9/11, and why he at first denied any involvement and then (in a questionable video) "confessed" to it, i.e. talked about it with friends. I think that premature death (his own) may have brought about this sudden change in his claims.

[William Kelly]

Mike,

I tuned in too late to C-SPAN books to catch the first show, will try to see Peter Lance tonight. Instead I got Patrick Coyle, author of "The Conservative Guide to Campus Activism," who is talking to high school students about starting Conservative Clubs in school and paying conservative speakers - they don't do it for free. For more info: See ReaganRanch@yaf.com. What a bunch of crackers. Taking credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall again and poisoning the minds of young kids.

Triple Cross is an important book, as Peter Dale Scott talks about in his Dallas COPA 2006 talk (See thread on that topic).

His other two books, "1000 Years of Revenge" and "Cover Up" are equally important, all published by Judith Regan at Harper Collins, who lost her job over the OJ flap.

Besides writing the most detailed account so far of al Qaeda double agent Ali Mohamed and the flight 800 explosion off Long Island were al Qaeda attacks.

BK

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I've read about half of Tripple Cross and am still reading it.

It definitely offers a strong argument that the FBI and CIA knew much more about Al Q., and much earlier than is commonly marketed. It certainly adds to our understanding of why Bush appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to the fake "PlameGate" scandal. Fitzgerald was already so compromised by the either "botched" or planned 'failures' to stop Al Q. THROUGHOUT the 1990's (as in all the way back to 1989) that he could be easily controlled, in terms of how far he threatened the Bush administration in the Plamegate McScandal.

Tripple Cross makes for an interesting battering ram, against the the Official 9/11 Report (actually a gentle breeze would do it, were it not protected from these

by our hothouse corporate media). On the one hand it does not (so far) go very close to "inside job' lines of argument. (Peter is off course a former reporter for ABC's 20/20). On the other, it makes a laughable joke of the Official 9/11 Commission' beginning thier study of Al Q. in 1996, and leaves no doubt that this was raw cover up--although it leans towards cover up of a 'buraucratic bungling' sort.