again you add nothing to the discusion except deragatory comments

No disrespect intended.......

It's just that there's been more internet time logged on this topic than even porn. It has taken on a quasi-religious status of it's own, separating people like very few things are capable of doing.

Most people at least by now, know or suspect that something is rotten in the state of Denmark (no offense Danes), but they are too terrified to come to terms with the possibility that their wondrous, faith-based government could have had a collusory role in the events of 9-11. It's the same mentality that makes them bury their heads in the sand if they hear something that might cause them to question their religious faith.

All the technical work has been done, and despite blatant, obvious facts, there are still many who will refuse to see the truth. Statistical data can be pruned, massaged and manipulated to either prove or disprove anything, but the basic , hard, cold, factual observations remain. All of the other BS is just used as an obfuscation of the truth.

i agree there isnt one smokeing gun on the topic but taken as a whole all the irregularities add up to yes something is rotten in Denmark, now the sad thing is there is nothing you or I can do even if every 911 conspiracy were true they would walk and live out there days in opulant splendor

madisonman,

Thanks for the
'Life of Brian'
clip.

Funny stuff!

But I agree
with Lording.

And why spend
so much time
on analyzing
the data
when nothing
good or useful
can really
come from it?

For Pete's sake,
they're still
analyzing the
Kennedy assassination
despite all the
evidence presented.

If you agree with lording then you see that yes something is indeed rotten in Denmark. I will keep at the subject as long as it interests me. glad you enjoyed the clip

What I meant is that
despite all the evidence
to the contrary, that
there was NOT a government
conspiracy, people still
refuse the believe the
data and go with whatever
pet conspiracy theory
suits their fancy.

It all stems from the
stupid single or multiple
bullet conspiracy theories.

It's like why can't
these conspiracy theorists
accept the possibility that
Oswald was acting alone?

I know and hitler didnt burn the reichstag

I like you, therefore I do so hate to rain on your sunny view of me, but I must clarify:

I AM one of those Conspiracy Theorists of which you speak. I meant my comments above in precisely the opposite manner in which you apparently interpreted them. Odd, isn't it, how one's personal views determine the perception of what we experience?

I believe our government is either guilty to the bone regarding 9-11, or is utterly incompetent. Either is totally unacceptable, in my opinion. Cover-ups of evidentiary discoveries and analytical data are still being orchestrated on demand, while those already existing are being maintained or smoke-screened as needed.

9-11 was definitely our Reichstaag incident for this cycle. There have been many others in the history of our country.

The question I want answered is
"who is writing the 'Mein Kampf' of Bush?"
I tend to stay away from this 9/11 topic because there just no winning.
Its not the govt. its not the bush admin.
"all roads lead to rome" applies here..

Read the story of alberto rivera; x-Jesuit priest under extreme oath induction (died/murdered depending on what you believe in 1997)
its completely unrelated to the 9/11 events but after you read it, and if you believe it, you will see that all roads indeed lead to rome.

I examined the Alberto Rivera case quite some time ago. Despite the undeniable fact that he lied voluminously, I agree with some of his allegations, but certainly not all. The responsible parties are part of a global network of influential puppet-masters with no central core. It is typical of the organizational structure of a terrorist network, and nigh unfathomable.

I am humbled Lordling by your writeing and thought process its a pleasure to read

Ok if you think our government had anything to do with 911 I have a piece of real estate I would like to sell you.........

Its a bed in the insane aslym!!!!!!!!

Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 02 October 2006

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have committed perjury in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission in May of 2004. At a minimum, her testimony was a convenient mishmash of half-truths and omissions which served to paint the White House as innocent bystanders as the attacks of 9/11 unfolded. Certainly, her testimony omitted the fact that the two most senior intelligence officials in the nation delivered a stern warning regarding an impending terror attack two full months before 9/11.

Sunday's edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled "Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice." The story described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice's attention to the looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, "State of Denial."

"Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts," read the Post story, "and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30, a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined 'Bin Laden Threats Are Real.' Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself ... Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment - covert, military, whatever - to thwart bin Laden."

The meeting, according to Tenet and Black, went nowhere. "Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies," the Post story reported. "Rice seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place."

"Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated," continued the Post story. "Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Black later said, 'The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.'"

The Post story concluded with a remarkable Editor's Note: "How much effort the Bush administration made in going after Osama bin Laden before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, became an issue last week after former president Bill Clinton accused President Bush's 'neocons' and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks. Rice responded in an interview that 'what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years.'"

This comment suggests the entire Post story was inspired by former President Clinton's remarkable denunciation of the Bush administration's efforts to thwart bin Laden in a recent Fox News interview. The seriousness of this meeting, however, goes far beyond political sniping and gamesmanship.

Peter Rundlet served as counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and has accused the White House of hiding the meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice from the commission. Rundlet practiced at the influential law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and was formerly associate counsel to the president and a White House Fellow, serving in the Office of Chief of Staff to the President, before joining the commission.

Writing for the online news magazine Think Progress, Rundlet stated, "Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about this revelation, questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked, had the commission been told about this significant meeting. Suspiciously, the commissioners and the staff investigating the administration's actions prior to 9/11 were never informed of the meeting. As Commissioner Jamie Gorelick pointed out, 'We didn't know about the meeting itself. I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.'"

This is a remarkable revelation in and of itself. The head of CIA and the head of CIA's counterterrorism branch delivered a warning in the strongest possible terms to Ms. Rice two months before the attack, yet this meeting was not revealed to the 9/11 Commission. It may well have remained a historical non-event had Woodward not written about it.

Which brings us to Ms. Rice's sworn testimony in May 2004 before the commission.

At one point in this hearing, Commission Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton directly asked Rice about the so-called intelligence failures leading up to 9/11: "At the end of the day, of course, we were unable to protect our people. And you suggest in your statement - and I want you to elaborate on this, if you want to - that in hindsight it would have been - better information about the threats would have been the single - the single most important thing for us to have done, from your point of view, prior to 9/11, would have been better intelligence, better information about the threats. Is that right? Are there other things that you think stand out?"

Rice responded, "Well, Mr. Chairman, I took an oath of office on the day that I took this job to protect and defend. And like most government officials, I take it very seriously. And so, as you might imagine, I've asked myself a thousand times what more we could have done. I know that, had we thought that there was an attack coming in Washington or New York, we would have moved heaven and earth to try and stop it. And I know that there was no single thing that might have prevented that attack."

Not only did Rice fail to mention the dramatic warnings given to her by Tenet and Black, she goes on to flatly state that neither she nor the administration had a clue that an attack was coming. Further, she claims that "no single thing could have prevented that attack."

"The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks," read the Post report on Sunday, "but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

Combined with the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing delivered to Bush, which explicitly stated that bin Laden intended to attack the United States, the revelation of this meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice indicates that the Bush White House should have and could have made a far greater effort at thwarting the 9/11 attacks. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on the matter may rise to the level of perjury. At a minimum, it exposes yet another nest of lies delivered by a member of this administration.

"A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me," wrote Peter Rundlet in his Think Progress article, "when I read about revelations in Bob Woodward's new book about a special surprise visit that George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice, also on July 10, 2001. If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know."

Indeed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." His newest book, "House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation," is now available from PoliPointPress.

-------

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/65/22884

Its seems to me that these long winded scripts of yours proves nothing since they are only opinion. I have faith in the US as the only country that has consistently at least tried to do something when evil tries to triumph over good. That's not opinion but fact!!!

Most lawyers could prove anything based on nothing as can writers.

cross refrence that is what i do when i am unsure of a story or topic its all over the place if you look all verifiable ...........to dismiss something you dont agree with without researchng it defeats the purpose of your post

I had an im box with a good person on this topic its messing my computer up,so friend I am going to have to reboot no disrespect intended and I will catch up another time

I'm going to stop debating
conspiracy theories on this
thread because I just don't
have the time or the patience.

I'll just leave you with
this thought:

People can fabricate evidence
or reasons for just about
anything.

It doesn't mean that there
is always a conspiracy or
coverup going on.

Using logic and deductive
reasoning is usually a
pretty good guide at
getting at the truth.

that is exacly how and why I think there is alot of the truth missing in the911 commision report...logic and deductive rreasoning

Well it is true that
the Bush Administration
hated the Clinton Administration
(and still does to this day).

Witness all the attacks
by the Right on Hillary.

I think they'd rather
a dogcatcher get elected
than her.

Clinton did make mistakes,
but probably a lot less
than Bush.

There are some things
he got right (it's the
economy, stupid).

I agree with you that
there has been a lot
of stonewalling by
the Bush Administration.

They have elevated lying
to an art form.

Of course, when they do
that they are just trying
to cover their butts.

Wasn't Condi swore in
on the condition that
what she said couldn't
be used against her?

But I digress.

Still, this doesn't
mean there were
explosives planted
inside the Twin Towers
or that there was
some kind of a
controlled demolition.

Think about it.

If the lies of the
Bush Administration
are so transparent,
then how could they
possibly cover up
a conspiracy of
this magnitude.

If they were that
good, then they
would have also
been able to cover
up the Justice Dept.
gaffes and others.