Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

What it amounts to is touting all these dozens of military somethings and hundreds of engineering somebodies and various purported experts here and there on explosions or demolition or fire or whatever ..... but when it comes right down it, an outright admission that, even collectively, they couldn't stand up in court.

A very telling admission.

Of course it couldn't. Not because they're wrong. But because the evidence has been removed. So should one just back down because the criminals got rid of the evidence? Absolutely not.

There is enough evidence to show that there was more to these events than what the offical report accounts for, but at this time there isn't enough evidence to charge those involved. If you really want to know the truth, I'm 99% positive that it'll be found in the unreleased Pentagon videos. Maybe that would hold up in court.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

And as for being so scared about a defamation suit, I haven't seen any such qualms about defaming Larry Silverstein -- except the knowledge that a lawsuit against the people defaming him couldn't collect anything more than their doublewide and their bedbugs.

Let's put the possibilty of defamation aside. It has very little to do with the argument anyways due to the immunity you pointed out.

The issue I have with your initial position discussed herein is that you're not considering or taking into account the fisical cost and consequences of battling the "official" position given by the 9-11 Commission Report, i.e. proving that the 9-11 Commission Report is a hoax or without merit. That's what it would take to even begin to argue that Silverstein conspired to demolish the WTC for gain. It's a lot easier to settle and move on.

But you make it seem like because the high priced lawyers available to these companies aren't willing to argue such a defense somehow constitutes as Silverstein being not guilty of having involvment in the 9-11 attacks. And that's a complete farce.

Now, I'm not advocating whether Silverstein is guilty or not. If you do want my personal view, however, I think he is, and he's milking it by suing the airlines.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

This may force the U.S. to adopt a new currency, such as the Amero.

Yes, I believe that is the plan. And I don't think it will occur until circa 2017 when Social Security goes bankrupt.

Originally Posted by BOBT12

All I am saying, is that the U.S. is a tool to the PTB. Just as a knife may dull if you do a lot of cutting. You can take time to sharpen the knife, or you may simply pick up a saw to continue the job.

That says it all.

[rottweiler]

Maybe the founding fathers should have just gone to court? Because they did not is that an admission that what they did was unlawful?

We should be able to hash this out in court but you crooked scumbags buggered it up again. Now war is inevitable.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

What it amounts to is touting all these dozens of military somethings and hundreds of engineering somebodies and various purported experts here and there on explosions or demolition or fire or whatever ..... but when it comes right down it, an outright admission that, even collectively, they couldn't stand up in court.

A very telling admission.


And as for being so scared about a defamation suit, I haven't seen any such qualms about defaming Larry Silverstein -- except the knowledge that a lawsuit against the people defaming him couldn't collect anything more than their doublewide and their bedbugs.

[rottweiler]

Where is the Rockefeller museum located?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxqsJHihdXw

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I assume you have some evidence for this. David Rockefeller was 76 years old when the WTC was destroyed and had reached a point where he was giving money away. Larry Silverstein is 17 years younger. The mere fact that they are both in the same same time zone and in the same tax brackets does not make them cronies.

In any case, they'll take away your membership card in the Loud Mouth Paranoids for shifting the blame for 9-11 away from a Jew onto a Baptist.

Silverstein and his consortium is still obligated to return entire buildings to the Port Authority when the lease expires, something that requires billions - not mere millions - in construction costs and, even more pressing, he's supposed to be sending investors a return right now based on rentals of WTC office space - an obligation that continues even when the buildings are vanished. So the amounts realized from the insurance and the litigation are not being stashed in his personal doggy bag.

One odd thing is that, even when being sued for millions, not one of the insurance companies even breathed the suggestion that Silverstein might have had something to do with the destruction of the WTC or any part of it. And you won't see any such suggestion in the upcoming litigation against the airlines. Even with millions at stake, the high priced defense lawyers are nto going to waste time with stupid talk.

The conspiracy theorists never stop to think: It would have cost milllions up front to arrange for illusiory hijackings, trick demolition, impossible phenomena (such as steel remaining liquified for several days), etc. And with every layer being painted on the conspiracy theories, hundreds - even thousands - are being added to the number of people who must have had some participation in the conspiracy ..... which means that whatever money was forthcoming from this conspiracy has to be spread wider and much thinner, to the point where a lot of the conspirators (presumably not stupid people) would have thought to themselves that honest work would have brought quicker and bigger returns. And so far not a one of those ten thousand or so conspirators has come forward and blabbed, not even after seven years.

[rottweiler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKyCpCrH3cY

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You obviously don't know about the immunity of legal pleadings to the usual liabilities for defamation.

"Strawman argument": simple arithmetic.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

We should be able to hash this out in court but you crooked scumbags buggered it up again. Now war is inevitable.

LOL - that about sums it up

[mrg]

When will good people here begin to consider the very real possibility, if not certainty, that "DC" is a foreign freaking country?

There is an allegiance to DC--NOT to The United States (freaking PLURAL) of America of the Unanimous Declaration, Articles of Confederation, the organic Constitution of 1787, and the militarily occupied physical landmass inhabited by the domestic American population.

The citizens of DC are foreigners.

FOREIGN; FOREIGNERS.

The citizens of Imperial DC promulgate a myth of "The Federal Government."

How can it not be apparent, if not OBVIOUS, to anyone with the capacity to think independently and, clinically, quite critically, that the domestic population of the United States of America has long since been fully conquered in brutal class-warfare waged against them by force of arms, psychological warfare (divide and conquer, and variations, "public" "education," etc.), clinical laboratory social engineering, and, by and large, through economic strangulation, by sanction and policy, amounting to the institutionalization of the practice of debt slavery?



Hail To The Chief


"Senators," "Representatives," and their staffs (constituting a "Soviet," rather than "Congress"); "President," "Vice President," and executive bureaucrats; "SCOTUS" "Justices," "federal" "judges," "magistrates," etc.; are NOT "TRAITORS," they are, simply, NOT "Americans," they are freaking DC FOREIGNERS domiciled in a FOREIGN Imperial National Socialist NATION-STATE, exercising military junta over the domestic population of a Nation they have conquered, and are agency contractors and sub-contractors for international/multinational corporate
war financiers/investors/profiteers.

Might it not be time (if not too late) for those who clearly understand the nurturing of Liberty and Liberty's relationship to Freedom, perhaps, to consider to whom and what the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen united States of America was addressed, and precisely why?

Consider also, the practical logistics that followed, especially the popular domestic opposition, and the nature of the tactical prosecution of what ensued.

Their can be no "rebellion," for there is NOTHING to OVERTHROW.

It is to be OVERCOME, as it has OVERCOME what for a very short period burned as a beacon of Hope in the winter night of history.

A poignant question to consider may be where does the armed forces of The United States of America stand?

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by mrg

When will good people here begin to consider the very real possibility, if not certainty, that "DC" is a foreign freaking country?

There is an allegiance to DC--NOT to The United States (freaking PLURAL) of America of the Unanimous Declaration, Articles of Confederation, the organic Constitution of 1787, and the militarily occupied physical landmass inhabited by the domestic American population.

The citizens of DC are foreigners.

FOREIGN; FOREIGNERS.

The citizens of Imperial DC promulgate a myth of "The Federal Government."

How can it not be apparent, if not OBVIOUS, to anyone with the capacity to think independently and, clinically, quite critically, that the domestic population of the United States of America has long since been fully conquered in brutal class-warfare waged against them by force of arms, psychological warfare (divide and conquer, and variations, "public" "education," etc.), clinical laboratory social engineering, and, by and large, through economic strangulation, by sanction and policy, amounting to the institutionalization of the practice of debt slavery?



Hail To The Chief


"Senators," "Representatives," and their staffs (constituting a "Soviet," rather than "Congress"); "President," "Vice President," and executive bureaucrats; "SCOTUS" "Justices," "federal" "judges," "magistrates," etc.; are NOT "TRAITORS," they are, simply, NOT "Americans," they are freaking DC FOREIGNERS domiciled in a FOREIGN Imperial National Socialist NATION-STATE, exercising military junta over the domestic population of a Nation they have conquered, and are agency contractors and sub-contractors for international/multinational corporate
war financiers/investors/profiteers.

Might it not be time (if not too late) for those who clearly understand the nurturing of Liberty and Liberty's relationship to Freedom, perhaps, to consider to whom and what the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen united States of America was addressed, and precisely why?

Consider also, the practical logistics that followed, especially the popular domestic opposition, and the nature of the tactical prosecution of what ensued.

Their can be no "rebellion," for there is NOTHING to OVERTHROW.

It is to be OVERCOME, as it has OVERCOME what for a very short period burned as a beacon of Hope in the winter night of history.

A poignant question to consider may be where does the armed forces of The United States of America stand?

You are correct. They are foreign to America, just as the City of London is foreign to England.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

You are correct.

They are foreign to America, just as the City of London is foreign to England.

No man, its even more profound and far worse than just that.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

What it amounts to is touting all these dozens of military somethings and hundreds of engineering somebodies and various purported experts here and there on explosions or demolition or fire or whatever ..... but when it comes right down it, an outright admission that, even collectively, they couldn't stand up in court.

A very telling admission.

Sure it is. It tells me that the government is obstructing justice. There are a number of insiders that have tried to talk, only to have the government gag them.

Sibel Edmonds: A Patriot Silenced, Unjustly Fired but Fighting Back to Help Keep America Safe (1/26/2005)

Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks.

Edmonds has been fighting the corruption permeating the FBI since her unfair dismissal and sued to contest her firing in July 2002. On July 6, 2004 , Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Edmonds' case, citing the government's state secrets privilege. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing Edmonds in her appeal of that ruling. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for April 21, 2005.

The privilege, when properly invoked, permits the government to block the release in litigation of any material that, if disclosed, would cause harm to national security. However, the government has employed the privilege to dismiss Edmonds' entire case in an effort to protect itself from embarrassment. While an FBI translator, Edmonds discovered poorly translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported the shoddy work to her supervisors. She also expressed concerns about a co-worker who had previously worked for an organization under FBI surveillance and had a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer also under surveillance. In addition, Edmonds claimed that she was told to work slowly to give the appearance that the agency was overworked so it would receive a larger budget, despite a large backlog of documents that needed translating.

Even though she followed all appropriate procedures for reporting her concerns up the chain of command, Edmonds was retaliated against and fired. After her termination, many of Edmonds' allegations were confirmed by the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. More than two years later, in May 2004, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds' briefings, as well as the FBI briefings, and forced Members of Congress who had the information posted on their Web sites to remove the documents.

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) sued the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft in June 2004 claiming the retroactive classification of Edmond's testimony was a violation of the First Amendment. That lawsuit is still pending, although Ashcroft and the Justice Department have moved to dismiss the suit.

The remarkable act of retroactive classification exemplifies a dangerous abuse of secrecy by the government regarding Edmonds' case. At least two Senators, Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), publicly support Edmonds and have pushed the Justice Department to declassify at least some of its investigation into her dismissal.

On January 14, 2004 , the Justice Department's Office unclassified summary of the Justice Department's Inspector General's report on Edmonds found that many of her claims "were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services."

A Timeline of Secrecy

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general...s20050126.html

Emphasis added.

FableArranger: Able Danger and Other NeoConnivancesLtCol Anthony Shaffer - Whistleblower Retaliation?

B13182 / Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:20:23 / Intelligence

Lt. Anthony Shaffer, Curt Weldon’s first public witness backing his allegations regarding Able Danger recently testified on February 14, 2005 [1], in front of The House Government Reform Committee; Subcommittee on National Security’s whistleblower retaliation investigation.

Shaffer claimed he had suffered the “Removal of Security Clearance in Retaliation for Protected Disclosures of Able Danger.” The two protected statments he mentioned were to the 911 Committee in 2003, and to Congressman Curt Weldon in 2004.

It is certainly a well known fact that the Bush Administration is prone to retaliatory acts. It’s not a good idea to anger Mr. Bush; they may even roll your wife… Still, a bit of thought should be given to what is known about Shaffer’s acts and the DoD’s allegations.

Shaffer’s attorney is Mark Zaid, a recognized and respected DC barrister, who often defends government whistle blowers. Most public statements that have been made regarding Shaffer’s security clearance revocation have come from Zaid, Shaffer, Weldon or their supporters. It would be a grevious violation of Military Conduct for the DoD’s investigators to speak publicly about the allegations against Shaffer, even to clear questions about their own integrity.

http://www.gnn.tv/blogs/13182/LtCol_...er_Retaliation

Emphasis added.

Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller

May 21, 2002

FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI Headquarters Washington, D.C.

Dear Director Mueller:

I feel at this point that I have to put my concerns in writing concerning the important topic of the FBI's response to evidence of terrorist activity in the United States prior to September 11th. The issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement mission and mandate. Moreover, at this critical juncture in fashioning future policy to promote the most effective handling of ongoing and future threats to United States citizens' security, it is of absolute importance that an unbiased, completely accurate picture emerge of the FBI's current investigative and management strengths and failures.

To get to the point, I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring. The term "cover up" would be too strong a characterization which is why I am attempting to carefully (and perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here. I base my concerns on my relatively small, peripheral but unique role in the Moussaoui investigation in the Minneapolis Division prior to, during and after September 11th and my analysis of the comments I have heard both inside the FBI (originating, I believe, from you and other high levels of management) as well as your Congressional testimony and public comments.

I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Emphasis added.

By the way, many of the "military somethings" are Generals, Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, Majors, Captains, Lieutenants, in short, they may have some idea of the workings of the military.