FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Guest David Guyatt]

Is there an unadulterated and complete transcript of Mineta's testimony to the 911 Commission availoable online anywhere? Just the testimony -- no interpretations just the testimony as it took place?

David

IIRC it's on the Comission's website either way with a little help from "Lady Google" to use your phrase you should be able to find it. If you use the forum's search engine you'll discover this has already been debated here Mineta seems to have been confused about the timeframe of events that morning.

Curiously Len, I did tickle Lady Google's fancy and checked but thus far to no avail. Likewise it's not on the Commissions website that I could see (and I spent a bit of time looking, too). Oddly enough, this negative result accords well with Peter's above post on Mineta that bore the following clue in a sub heading:

"Damming Mineta testimony censored from final 9/11 Commission Report."

Censorship, eh. If it don't fit the paint-by-numbers picture you're creating, then just toss it out, right.

The Mineta testimony may have been debated here before but I simply wish to read the primary testimony so I know what Mineta actually stated, as it strikes me as possibly being one of those small anomalous items that I enjoy so much.

And by the way, when you say that Mineta was "confused about the timeframe of events", is that your spin? Or is it Mineta's admission that he may have been fuzzy about it all? In other words did he come over all ancient and bumbling after giving testimony to the Commission, or are you and others simply putting an appropriate slant on what he said? Just like what happened to Lt. Colonel Shaffer after his testimony. And like that of FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds testimony. And FBI whistelblower Coleen Rowley.

Bad coins just keeping turning up don't they.

David

[Len Colby]

The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Sorry, Charles, but this is John's rule. I have to remove it. I am sorry if this upsets you.

Kathy

********************************************************************************

Mr. Colby,

Please correct your quote regarding what Charles Drago actually said. That is only fair.

Charles wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" ,

not

"the near total absence of damage to the building ".

I edited my post as per your request even though Drago’s objections and him twice calling me a xxxx are completely absurd because:

1) My post was directly below the one in which I’d quoted him

2) The whole question is whether or not the damage to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a 757 so this obviously what I was disputing.

3) The first photo I posted came from a leading “truther” site disputing the notion that there was a “near total absence of damage to the building…consistent with such an event”. It and the other photo show damage consistent with impact from a plane the size of a 757. Jim Hoffman the author of the page is frequently cited by other leading truthers like Steve Jones, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin

4) I called the links I provided to Hoffman’s site “Good debunkings of the a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon nonsense from a leading ‘truther’”

5) I truncated his quote where I did because I was not addressing the issue of damage to the “adjacent grounds”. Perhaps he can explain what sort of damage he expected to see there.

6) He is quite obviously “factually challenged” because he accused Evan of censoring when presumably knowing broke a forum rule and it was clearly indicated that you made the edits.

The real problem seems to be he doesn’t deal well with being shown to be wrong. With or without the rest of his quote my point still stands.

“Unless my original words are reinstated, I am done with this Forum.”

Promises, promises

[Charles Drago]

Drago wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building "

Colby is misstating.

I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" (emphasis added)

We could not ask for a more blatant, unambiguous, reprehensible example of his modus operandi throughout this Forum. In this case, he is misstating via selective and intentional editing and misrepresentation of my original post.

I repeat: Colby is misstating.

Charles Drago

(Edited to add misstated and misstating: removal of words banned by Forum Adm.)

This is the last straw.

Unless my original words are reinstated, I am done with this Forum.

John Simkin, the call is yours.

Colby is allowed to twist my words for his own vile purposes, and Evan Burton implicitly endorses that action by censoring MY response!?!?!?

"Misstating" my XXX!

Charles Drago

And Charles, as I said by PM, I was intentionally not taking any action with regard to your and Len's postings because I was close to the subject matter. As I told you, I passed it on to other mods for whatever action - if any - they saw fit.

I did NOT "censor" your response. It is an incorrect statement... or perhaps there would be another word I could use for it?

Evan,

I wrote the above some eight-plus hours before I read your PM, to which I responded by thanking you for what I termed a fair and honorable recusal.

If by "taking any action" you are referencing, say, placing me on moderation, then of course you are being accurate.

However, changing my posts just minutes after they appeared -- whether such alteration is characterized as "editing" or "censoring" -- surely rises to the description of "action" taken by you.

Or perhaps I'm making an unwarranted assumption. Did you make the changes?

Charles

[Len Colby]

Curiously Len, I did tickle Lady Google's fancy and checked but thus far to no avail. Likewise it's not on the Commissions website that I could see (and I spent a bit of time looking, too). Oddly enough, this negative result accords well with Peter's above post on Mineta that bore the following clue in a sub heading:

"Damming Mineta testimony censored from final 9/11 Commission Report."

Censorship, eh. If it don't fit the paint-by-numbers picture you're creating, then just toss it out, right.

I'm near certain i's on their site when I find time I'll post the link. As with all serious investigations far more evidence is collected than is presented in the final report it's not like he was the onlt witness whose testimony was left out. IIRC only a small percentage of the testimoney was used.

And by the way, when you say that Mineta was "confused about the timeframe of events", is that your spin? Or is it Mineta's admission that he may have been fuzzy about it all? In other words did he come over all ancient and bumbling after giving testimony to the Commission, or are you and others simply putting an appropriate slant on what he said?

The question is a bit complex do a forum search for post I've made with the keyword 'mineta'

Just like what happened to Lt. Colonel Shaffer after his testimony. And like that of FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds testimony. And FBI whistelblower Coleen Rowley.

I'll look into the Rowley and Schaffer issues but Edmonds' insight is of dubious anture she worked for the FBI as a contract (civilain) translator for a few months AFTER 9/11 of l Turkish, Persian and Azeri rather than Arabic and Phustun which would have been the most relevant languagesto 9/11. She has never said AFAIK that she thinks the US or Israel goverments we involved in or let 9/11 buth rather that the foirmer covered up involvement of Turkish and "friendly" Arab state oficial and fat cats.

[Len Colby]

[To Evan:}However, changing my posts just minutes after they appeared -- whether such alteration is characterized as "editing" or "censoring" -- surely rises to the description of "action" taken by you.

Or perhaps I'm making an unwarranted assumption. Did you make the changes?

I wonder what part of

This post has been edited by Kathy Beckett: Today, 01:24 AM

he failed to comprehend?

EDIT

David I found the link to Mineta's testimoney from the 9/11 C. this makes the charge it was "censored" that much more absurd

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2003-05-23.htm

Edited November 11, 2007 by Len Colby

[Charles Drago]

The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Sorry, Charles, but this is John's rule. I have to remove it. I am sorry if this upsets you.

Kathy

********************************************************************************

Mr. Colby,

Please correct your quote regarding what Charles Drago actually said. That is only fair.

Charles wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" ,

not

"the near total absence of damage to the building ".

I edited my post as per your request even though Drago’s objections and him twice calling me a xxxx are completely absurd because:

1) My post was directly below the one in which I’d quoted him

2) The whole question is whether or not the damage to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a 757 so this obviously what I was disputing.

3) The first photo I posted came from a leading “truther” site disputing the notion that there was a “near total absence of damage to the building…consistent with such an event”. It and the other photo show damage consistent with impact from a plane the size of a 757. Jim Hoffman the author of the page is frequently cited by other leading truthers like Steve Jones, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin

4) I called the links I provided to Hoffman’s site “Good debunkings of the a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon nonsense from a leading ‘truther’”

5) I truncated his quote where I did because I was not addressing the issue of damage to the “adjacent grounds”. Perhaps he can explain what sort of damage he expected to see there.

6) He is quite obviously “factually challenged” because he accused Evan of censoring when presumably knowing broke a forum rule and it was clearly indicated that you made the edits.

The real problem seems to be he doesn’t deal well with being shown to be wrong. With or without the rest of his quote my point still stands.

“Unless my original words are reinstated, I am done with this Forum.”

Promises, promises

I added emphasis and size to the original quote above.

This claim, of course, does not pass the laugh test.

And the change made by Colby to his original Post 68 is nothing more than a Fascist-like erasure of the record -- a perversion of the truth.

I did not request such a revision.

Colby truncated my original material as follows:

I wrote in Post 67: "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" (emphasis added)

Colby responded in Post 68: "Drago wrote 'the near total absence of damage to the building'"

His explanation as highlighted above does not pass the laugh test. Think about it. There is one, and only one, logical explanation for his actions: Colby consciously misrepresented my position in order to characterize me as someone who argues that the Pentagon did not sustain damage.

Now he scurries from the light of the truth.

There is no innocent explanation for Colby's action. His false statement was deliberately presented as being true. He wilfully intended to deceive, to give a wrong impression.

Colby posted a whopping taradiddle. A jactitation of the vilest sort.

Then he ran and hid behind moderators' skirts.

John Simkin, pick a side.

Charles Drago

[Craig Lamson]

[To Evan:}However, changing my posts just minutes after they appeared -- whether such alteration is characterized as "editing" or "censoring" -- surely rises to the description of "action" taken by you.

Or perhaps I'm making an unwarranted assumption. Did you make the changes?

I wonder what part of

This post has been edited by Kathy Beckett: Today, 01:24 AM

he failed to comprehend?

EDIT

David I found the link to Mineta's testimoney from the 9/11 C. this makes the charge it was "censored" that much more absurd

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2003-05-23.htm

Good job Len! That Fetzer clone "sticky fingers" sure has his shorts in a wad! Keep it up...remember this is WAR! LOL!

[Len Colby]

The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Sorry, Charles, but this is John's rule. I have to remove it. I am sorry if this upsets you.

Kathy

********************************************************************************

Mr. Colby,

Please correct your quote regarding what Charles Drago actually said. That is only fair.

Charles wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" ,

not

"the near total absence of damage to the building ".

I edited my post as per your request even though Drago’s objections and him twice calling me a xxxx are completely absurd because:

1) My post was directly below the one in which I’d quoted him

2) The whole question is whether or not the damage to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a 757 so this obviously what I was disputing.

3) The first photo I posted came from a leading “truther” site disputing the notion that there was a “near total absence of damage to the building…consistent with such an event”. It and the other photo show damage consistent with impact from a plane the size of a 757. Jim Hoffman the author of the page is frequently cited by other leading truthers like Steve Jones, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin

4) I called the links I provided to Hoffman’s site “Good debunkings of the a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon nonsense from a leading ‘truther’”

5) I truncated his quote where I did because I was not addressing the issue of damage to the “adjacent grounds”. Perhaps he can explain what sort of damage he expected to see there.

6) He is quite obviously “factually challenged” because he accused Evan of censoring when presumably knowing broke a forum rule and it was clearly indicated that you made the edits.

The real problem seems to be he doesn’t deal well with being shown to be wrong. With or without the rest of his quote my point still stands.

“Unless my original words are reinstated, I am done with this Forum.”

Promises, promises

I added emphasis and size to the original quote above.

This claim, of course, does not pass the laugh test.

Drago of course chose to ignore my other points especially the first, only someone as foolish as he is would intentionally misquote someone in the post directly below theirs. The omitted part doesn't change the essence of my point that contrary to his claim to the contrary the damage to the building WAS consistent with a 757 impact

And the change made by Colby to his original Post 68 is nothing more than a Fascist-like erasure of the record -- a perversion of the truth.

I did not request such a revision.

I did care what you did or didn't request. Kathy, a moderator, asked me to and I complied

Colby truncated my original material as follows:

I wrote in Post 67: "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" (emphasis added)

Colby responded in Post 68: "Drago wrote 'the near total absence of damage to the building'"

I think everyone is quite aware of the history at this point.

John Simkin, pick a side.

John made it very clear he wanted to stay clear of such acrimony, you pay not a dime to be a member of his forum which he invests his own time and money in. You have no right to make demands on him.

EDIT - I toned it down a bit

Edited November 11, 2007 by Len Colby

[Guest David Guyatt]

Curiously Len, I did tickle Lady Google's fancy and checked but thus far to no avail. Likewise it's not on the Commissions website that I could see (and I spent a bit of time looking, too). Oddly enough, this negative result accords well with Peter's above post on Mineta that bore the following clue in a sub heading:

"Damming Mineta testimony censored from final 9/11 Commission Report."

Censorship, eh. If it don't fit the paint-by-numbers picture you're creating, then just toss it out, right.

I'm near certain i's on their site when I find time I'll post the link. As with all serious investigations far more evidence is collected than is presented in the final report it's not like he was the onlt witness whose testimony was left out. IIRC only a small percentage of the testimoney was used.

And by the way, when you say that Mineta was "confused about the timeframe of events", is that your spin? Or is it Mineta's admission that he may have been fuzzy about it all? In other words did he come over all ancient and bumbling after giving testimony to the Commission, or are you and others simply putting an appropriate slant on what he said?

The question is a bit complex do a forum search for post I've made with the keyword 'mineta'

Just like what happened to Lt. Colonel Shaffer after his testimony. And like that of FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds testimony. And FBI whistelblower Coleen Rowley.

I'll look into the Rowley and Schaffer issues but Edmonds' insight is of dubious anture she worked for the FBI as a contract (civilain) translator for a few months AFTER 9/11 of l Turkish, Persian and Azeri rather than Arabic and Phustun which would have been the most relevant languagesto 9/11. She has never said AFAIK that she thinks the US or Israel goverments we involved in or let 9/11 buth rather that the foirmer covered up involvement of Turkish and "friendly" Arab state oficial and fat cats.

I look forward to you find the Mineta testimony on the Commission website. I used their serach function using a number of variable search terms and it didn't hit once. The name "Mineta" can back with a zero return.

On the contrary Len, Sibel Edmonds testimony is most relevant to 911:

"She blew the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. These culprits are protected by the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are foreign nationals and Americans. Ms. Edmonds is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention the names of the people or the countries involved."

In the words of the Baltimore Chronicle. Gag orders do make it difficult to talk openly, dont' they -- especially when she had Top Secret Clearance. Perhaps you were "cherry picking" your interpretation of what she said, Len?

Moreover she has stated absolutely that if the story of the cover-up was made public that a number of officials in the US would face high level criminal prsoecutions - a fact that is noteworthy:

"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."

Her words, not mine.

And if anybody wishes to read her words as it pertains to 911, and how she has been gagged about her knowledge of the cover-up, they can read an interview she gave here:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Well, that's the thing about a former government officer with top secret clearance who wished to talk about their knowledge of 911. They were forbidden to speak.

I'm talking about ABLE DANGER'S Colonel Shaffer, naturally, But you would be forgiven for thinking I was speaking of Sibel Edmonds.

Because I am. Exactly the same sort of gagging order took place for her about the information she attemptef to place in the public domain, too.

Edit = PS, and Len, since you are unable to demonstrate any substance to your earlier allegation of Mineta's failing memory (and I know you would've done if you could've done...), I think it only fair and reasonable to assume this is unsubstantiated opinion of the third kind (the unpleasant tarring and feathering variety) and not, as you intended to imply, in any sense factual.

David

Edited November 11, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Evan Burton]

Drago wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building "

Colby is misstating.

I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" (emphasis added)

We could not ask for a more blatant, unambiguous, reprehensible example of his modus operandi throughout this Forum. In this case, he is misstating via selective and intentional editing and misrepresentation of my original post.

I repeat: Colby is misstating.

Charles Drago

(Edited to add misstated and misstating: removal of words banned by Forum Adm.)

This is the last straw.

Unless my original words are reinstated, I am done with this Forum.

John Simkin, the call is yours.

Colby is allowed to twist my words for his own vile purposes, and Evan Burton implicitly endorses that action by censoring MY response!?!?!?

"Misstating" my XXX!

Charles Drago

And Charles, as I said by PM, I was intentionally not taking any action with regard to your and Len's postings because I was close to the subject matter. As I told you, I passed it on to other mods for whatever action - if any - they saw fit.

I did NOT "censor" your response. It is an incorrect statement... or perhaps there would be another word I could use for it?

Evan,

I wrote the above some eight-plus hours before I read your PM, to which I responded by thanking you for what I termed a fair and honorable recusal.

If by "taking any action" you are referencing, say, placing me on moderation, then of course you are being accurate.

However, changing my posts just minutes after they appeared -- whether such alteration is characterized as "editing" or "censoring" -- surely rises to the description of "action" taken by you.

Or perhaps I'm making an unwarranted assumption. Did you make the changes?

Charles

Charles,

Fine - you did not read my PM before you posted. I've done that before myself.

No, I did NOT make any changes to your post. Whenever an edit is made to a post, the name of the person making the latest edit is noted down at near the bottom of the post 9see the bottom of this post, for example). This applies to all forum members - admins included. A full record of changes made to a post is recorded in the security log.

If you ever believe a change has been made to a post of yours, you should look for this name and take up the matter with them.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Evan Burton
An example of how the name of a person making an edit appears

[Guest David Guyatt]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...MustTestify.pdf

Above goes into some detail on the Mineta testimony and statements. Peter Dale Scott's book The Road To 911 takes every word and nuance of the situation....and nails it down.....including being able to reconcile the apparent contradcitions between Chaney and Mineta, and others as well as the timing differences.....

It would not be fair to Peter to scan and upload his masterwork and, besides, this covers about 50 pages!....Anyone interested in this matter should read both. I believe especially the book is the current definitive analysis of this!

I was going to get his book anyway, Peter, but you've sold it to me now...

David

[Len Colby]

I look forward to you find the Mineta testimony on the Commission website. I used their serach function using a number of variable search terms and it didn't hit once. The name "Mineta" can back with a zero return.

David you need to pay better attention. Not only did I post the link but Craig, your unrequited love interest , quoted the post. See posts 82 and 84 on the previous page.

On the contrary Len, Sibel Edmonds testimony is most relevant to 911:

"She blew the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. These culprits are protected by the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are foreign nationals and Americans. Ms. Edmonds is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention the names of the people or the countries involved."

In the words of the Baltimore Chronicle. Gag orders do make it difficult to talk openly, dont' they -- especially when she had Top Secret Clearance. Perhaps you were "cherry picking" your interpretation of what she said, Len?

1) The Chronicle is NOT a regular newspaper but rather a “a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973.” I’ve heard of it or the author before. He is described as “a retired high school teacher and professional actor, has been doing a Vermont-based listener-sponsored radio show each week for over 10 years” He seems rather emamoured of neo-Nazi truthers like Bollyn and Hufshmidt. Thus I wouldn’t take any of his undocumented claims for granted.

2) I really doubt she was in a position to know as much as she purports because as I pointed out earlier “she worked for the FBI as a contract (civilian) translator for a few months AFTER 9/11 of l Turkish, Persian and Azeri rather than Arabic and Phustun which would have been the most relevant languages to 9/11”

Moreover she has stated absolutely that if the story of the cover-up was made public that a number of officials in the US would face high level criminal prsoecutions - a fact that is noteworthy:

"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."

Nothing in the quote above contradicts anything I said about her POV. But her views do seem to have changed she originally said stuff like “Edmonds says that to her amazement, from the day she started the job, she was told repeatedly by one of her supervisors that there was no urgency,- that she should take longer to translate documents so that the department would appear overworked and understaffed. That way, it would receive a larger budget for the next year.” Only later did she add the parts about the government covering up the involvement of Near Eastern VIP’s, if her position has evolved to saying “9/11 was an inside job” or was “allowed to happen” that is relatively recent. She certainly doesn’t seem to be saying the former in the interview and only seems to hint at the latter but not say so outright (though I admit I started skimming the interview about half way through). A lot of what she spoke about was not based on her experience. I imagine the treatment she received embittered her a bit

Well, that's the thing about a former government officer with top secret clearance who wished to talk about their knowledge of 911. They were forbidden to speak.

1) She spoke to the Senate Judiciary committee.

2) I imagine her clearance only gave her access to tapes and transcripts to be translated.

3) I could imagine them wanting to prevent her from divulging embarrassing information

4) Though it’s often abused it makes sense for governments to be able classify information. By extension this gives them the right to block someone with access to such information from talking about it.

I'm talking about ABLE DANGER'S Colonel Shaffer, naturally, But you would be forgiven for thinking I was speaking of Sibel Edmonds.

Because I am. Exactly the same sort of gagging order took place for her about the information she attemptef to place in the public domain, too.

This Edmunds and Able Danger stuff is a bit OT should we take it to another thread?

Edit = PS, and Len, since you are unable to demonstrate any substance to your earlier allegation of Mineta's failing memory (and I know you would've done if you could've done...), I think it only fair and reasonable to assume this is unsubstantiated opinion of the third kind (the unpleasant tarring and feathering variety) and not, as you intended to imply, in any sense factual.

Wrong again, as I said the subject is complex and has already been discussed here. I even gave you simple instructions to find the thread. The debate went on for 6 pages. If you wish to debate this issue we should do so on the thread linked below so that we don’t have to go over points already discussed.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=108128

Edit replace 'above' to blue text above

Edited November 12, 2007 by Len Colby

[Guest David Guyatt]

Kisses for the Mineta testimony, you good ol’ boys. That’s a great help.

Len, regarding Sibel Edmonds and your comments about the editor of the Baltimore Chronicle, namely Jim Hogue. Again, you do appear to be very free and easy and factually undisciplined in the way you tar people who do not agree with your version of events. It’s a most unpleasant tactic if I may say so.

Because of this, and since it is the veracity of Sibel Edmond’s testimony that is in question here (and not your poison pen comments about the website owner), I have emailed Sibel Edmonds to ask her to confirm if this interview is accurate. I will post here when I get a reply (an acknowledgement has already been received). Accurately and factually.

We are also fortunate to be in a position to note that irrespective of your undermining spin about Sibel Edmond’s importance, she was significant enough in what she knew for the FBI to place gagging orders on her twice. Your repeated emphasis on her language skills is, of course, merely an example of the technique of deflection and should be ignored.

Her official website is:

http://www.justacitizen.com/

We should not take the ABLE DANGER subject to another thread because it is this thread where we are slowly showing that the likelihood of prior knowledge of 911 by various agencies of the US. Obviously, I can see why you would want to fragment that developing picture as it accords with your apparent desire of emasculating everything and everyone that undermines the official version of events.

Ditto the Mineta testimony. Let’s discuss it again here as it also builds upon the overall picture of prior intelligence knowledge of 911. I now know that the comments you earlier made that Mineta “was "confused about the timeframe of events", is, as I suspected, a personal opinion and not a factual statement. I also note that when you had the opportunity to correct this misstatement above you chose not to.

Furthermore, in your post (#91) above where you mention Mineta you say this: “If you wish to debate this issue we should do so on the thread linked below” (and provide a link to previous discussion of Mineta’s testimony - for which thanks). However on that thread you state: “As for Mineta’s testimony, I think it would more appropriately should be discussed in another thread.”

What’s all that about I wonder…

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=11519&hl=

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11241

Peter Dale Scott does more than most others to demonstrate the BIG LIES of the official version [and he is conservative, as 9/11 Truth people go!].

I agree Peter, PDS is someone to be reckoned with. I used to be in contact with him (and still have an unpublished manuscript he gave me for my nazi gold research) but this lapsed some while back. Still, I do know someone who is in close contact with him and may resume now contact to ask some questions about 911. I'd better buy his book first, though...

David

[Len Colby]

"Double, double toil and trouble"

Edited November 12, 2007 by Len Colby