That was uncivil and uncalled for.

Even if we have serious differences in our viewpoints lets at least be more courteous when expressing our differing viewpoints.

These are some books the man you are cursing recommends on this website.

http://www.theshellgame.net/books.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

How can that be?

His website links to 911blogger.com

Which links to the very comments you have posted on Israel if people take the trouble to look!

Israelite involvement in 911 is a given considering the dancing Mossad agents and other evidence which have been posted here and other websites.

Suspicious Israelite behaviour on 911 is covered on occasion by numerous sitesl listed on Alten lists though not in as a comprehensive manner as one would always wish for.

But lets not forget the Saudi Royal Family and the Bin-Ladin Family's close connection to the Bush Regime, the Carlyle Group -the Iron Triangle as the say,

The International Military Industrial Complex carried out 911. It was an International Job. Not just the Israelites.

Steve Alten most likely still has his blindspots like all of us did at one time. He said on an interview with Jason Bermas - GCN Louder than Words - that he saw Loose Change AFTER writing the book. So in some ways he is still green.

The Truth Movement is growing in stages. We cannot attack a young branch just because we are more mature in our understanding of the matter.

I suggest we give the man a chance to spread the word out and we can further enlighten people who "wake up" and start asking serious questions.

Regardless, the Israelites are not the only culprits. This is far far bigger than them. They are a dangerous player, but not the only one.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Hi Victronix: I might be mistaken, but isn't part of their platform to expand HEW (health, education, welfare)?
Plus, do they not want to institute a tax on carbon dioxide emissions?

That's why I stated that they would increase the size of government. However, I must acknowledge that they would greatly shrink it in another area by ending the war on Iraq.

Cheers,
Patrick
ps. regarding Friedman and Paul, their views are not identical, but they are very similar.

I have read the works of many of the people above, taking on my own judgment what I agree with and not taking the rest. I don't care if they like this book or not. I don't. In fact, I think the book is fundamentally flawed, and I will say it whether you like or not.

In addition to fear-mongering and hate-mongering against Muslims, he ignores the demolitions, and at around page 468 suggests that a real investigation of 9/11 would bring anarchy in the U.S. and hostilities throughout the Arab world, and that a coverup would "preserve the state of the union." He's talking about the nuking of L.A., but the same argument he makes would apply to 9/11. Since you like all caps, WHY IS HE SAYING SUCH A THING? THIS IS INIMICALLY OPPOSED TO THE PURPOSES OF THIS MOVEMENT! The book not only justifies 9/11, it justifies the coverup.

Whether you like it or not, and whether the people above see that or not, that's the way I see it and there is no way in hell I would recommend this poison to anyone. Got it?

I never heard of you, either, until you started this campaign. Doesn't mean you haven't been out there doing what you think is right. Good for you, Bill, but don't you dare question my actions because I disagree with this book. And the idea that this is intellectual snobbery is absurd. He has a graduate degree and chose to write a book about 9/11, and for whatever reason ignored the most important and most easily proven part, the demolitions. Instead, he suggests, Promis software caused the towers to disintegrate.

I've done what I can for over six years, which isn't much and isn't nearly enough. I know I was speaking out long before some of the people above. Which isn't to brag, be critical of others for taking longer to recognize the fraud, or say that I have done more.

I called my local NPR station in late 2001 or early 2002, during an interview of Salon's Scott Shuger on the military response on 9/11. Having read Jared Israel's seminal articles questioning whether there was a standdown, I stated that I thought the official story of delayed military response was implausible.

I also wrote this letter to CSPAN in June 2002, when I was still under the influence of the completely unproven, and as such slanderous and hate-mongering, story about Muslim hijackers that Steve Alten is now pushing.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00053.htm

Below are some things I said right after the attacks, where I am clearly under the influence of the still unproven official story. I think that Alten takes the story back 5 years, to a very flawed understanding I have spent much time overcoming.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

12 Sep 2001

Re: FW: Atrocity in America

"America is responsible for creating such feelings of immense hatred against itself and would be better protected in the future if it only pursued a policy of co-operation, friendship, fair trade and justice with all foreign countries. David Roberts"

I agree with this completely. Which is not at all to say, and I doubt Roberts is saying, that yesterday's attack was in any way justified.

A local columnist,Joel Connelly of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote today: "A rule in dealing with evil in the modern world is that those who sow the wind must reap the whirlwind. The evil people responsible for yesterday's deeds must feel what Frederick the Great called 'the slashing sword of retribution.'"

This kind of talk will lead to the deaths of thousands if not millions more innocent, powerless people, including more, not less, attacks on Americans. By Connelly's morality and logic, I must believe that yesterday's attack was justified retaliation, because I believe we as Americans, knowing that our government was killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis yet doing nothing about it, are responsible for not trying to stop those killings.

I don't accept Connelly's logic. Yesterday's mass murder was evil.

Americans need to reflect, including self-reflection, on the causes of yesterday's violence, rather than act with mindless vengeance. But this is not happening on a mass scale, nor is it likely to. Instead the government and corporate authoritarians in our country will use this opportunity to increase the power of the military and intelligence agencies, and further decrease our civil rights.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

13 Sep 2001

Re: FW: Atrocity in America

I realize that my view assumes a lot, namely that Osama bin Laden or whoever did the attacks on NYC and the Pentagon acted, at least in part, out of revenge for the Iraqi sanctions.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

14 Sep 2001

Re: NO RUSH TO WAR!/O'Reilly Factor/FOX/13Sept2001

O'Reilly said: "[I]t's going to come down on Osama bin Laden first and maybe some of these rouge states later." Since "it" is bombs, I think it is important to know which states warrant bombing, if any.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

"The papers and air waves are full of calls for retaliation regardless of the civilian deaths. My local paper is printing letters to the editor with metaphors such as "vermin" and "kill the hive to get all the bees." There is a good chance that our government is going to kill many thousands of innocent civilians in responding to the WTC/Pentagon attacks. If it happens, I call that state terrorism. What do you call it?"

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

17 Sep 2001

Re: Criminal Negligence or Treason

"The below article states that the military did not know that Flight 77 was headed for the Pentagon until 9:31 a.m., twelve minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon, when the military was told so by the Federal Aviation Administration.

"This contradicts the information in the New York Times article: "During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do."

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

25 Sep 2001

Re: Bush Keeps Media in Dark on Attacks
"We can't release the evidence, because it's going to a grand jury. But during this criminal proceeding, we reserve the right to kill the accused and any accomplices or accessories to the crime." (sarcasm)

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

26 Sep 2001

Re: Bush Keeps Media in Dark on Attacks

Frank: "From another angle : I thought we were going to arrest him and all others involved and bring them to trial, if they go for armed resistance to the law enforcers, well anything could happen."

Yes, that makes sense and explains the contradiction I raised, which is not a contradiction if the mission is law enforcement. It just seems to me the U.S. military is being deployed with a broader mission against countries like Iraq and Libya, which William Safire of the New York Times called "preemptive retaliation."

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0110&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

9 Oct 2001

Re: More on Bushladen Carlyle Group:George Soros & James Baker, part of the Family

The question of "who benefits?" (from the WTC attacks) aside, shouldn't this money be given to the victims or their families?

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0110&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=D&F=P...

25 Oct 2001

Re: (Fwd) At war with NATO

I suspect that the day and time were chosen to maximize the psychological impact of the televised images of the planes hitting the towers. The perpetrators obviously showed heinous disregard for human life, and maximizing loss of life may also have been their intent, but I think as part of a broader goal of shocking the American people rather than as a purpose in itself.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0112&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

1 Dec 2001

Re: FW: [Intlawprofessor-l] FW: No War Against Afghanistan! (rev.)

Much more than in the Quirin case, the public needs to know what happened leading up to 9/11. A public trial might reveal information that is not only embarrassing, as in Quirin, but might reveal misfeasance or malfeasance by powerful officials.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0112&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

5 Dec 2001

Re: FW: Wedgie&New World Order: Op-Ed Re Military Tribunals

> In federal court, as well, there are severe limitations on what evidence > can be heard by a jury. Hearsay statements of probative value, admissible >in military commissions, European criminal courts and international courts, >cannot be considered in a trial by jury. Historically, Anglo-American >juries were thought incapable of weighing out-of-court statements, and the >Supreme Court attached many of these jury rules to the Constitution.

Wedgewood seems to be saying there shouldn't be trial by jury for terrorists. Perhaps Professor Wedgewood would rather practice law in Europe. In the United States, we try people by jury, and we restrict hearsay. She is talking about the U.S. Government doing the trial, right?

>So bin Laden's telephone call to his mother, telling her that "something >big" was imminent,could not be entered into evidence if the source of >information was his mother's best friend.

If Professor Wedgewood could not get this evidence in under one of many exceptions to the hearsay rule, she must not have been a very good federal prosecutor.

>In a terrorist trial, there are few eyewitnesses willing to testify, >because conspiracy cells are compartmentalized, and witnesses fear >revenge.

Witness protection programs. I think the Mafia is better at finding people in the United States than would be foreign terrorists. Does the Professor suggest extending this "trial" format to domestic organized crime prosecutions?

Or it might not. We'll may never really know, just as we may never really know if Her Majesty's Government's report is sufficient evidence of bin Ladin's complicity to justify the attack on Afghanistan.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

28 Jan 2002

Re: Washington Post fails to explain

This would mean that he knew nothing about the attacks until 9:05, which seems hard to believe. In order not to contradict the Washington Post account, one would have to assume that senior advisor Karl Rove came to Bush after the second plane hit with some very stale information, that he thought it was a small plane that hit the World Trade Center.

What if anything this means I do not know. Maybe I should take Frank's advice and choose blissful ignorance. All I have to do is believe.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

19 Jan 2002

Re: GUILTY FOR 9-11, SECTION 3: BUSH IN THE OPEN

This distinction between fighters dedicated to defense from military attack, and dual-purpose fighters that handle both defense and more general maintenance of air sovereignty, is made in both sources cited by ML:

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm

[The above source is important - shows that the quickest response fighters were greatly reduced after Cold War but many quick response fighters remained.]

http://www.ang.af.mil/ngb/paih/heritage.htm

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

13 Jan 2002

Re: FW: FAQ

> > You write: >Many are now pointing to the Operation Northwood plan of the early 1960s, in which >military planners allegedly considered the possibility of a terrorist >attack on U.S. citizens to discredit Cuba and build support for military >action. > >"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the >possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on >the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even >orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities." >Not on the scale of 9/11, but the concept is the same. > >My comment: > Allegedly considered the possibility, but didn't, hardly evidence of anything is it.

If true, it is evidence that the military considered killing innocent people to justify war.

>Criticism is ok but as I have said before I think the aim is frequently nothing other, than to attack your own country

I am not attacking my country. I am stating that the possibility exists, and should be considered, that individuals and groups within my government were somehow involved in allowing these attacks to happen. Questioning my government is not the same as attacking my country, and considering the possibility that a coup may have taken place is not an attack on the government as a whole.'

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

7 Jan 2002

Re: FAQ # 2 (expanded) - "Planes DID scramble on 9-11. Emperor's Clothes is wrong."

Jared Israel raises excellent questions based on public statements of U.S. government and military officials. These same questions were asked by Senators at General Myers' September 13 confirmation hearing. General Myers, a former pilot and head of NORAD, did not provide any reasonable explanation. He states he convened a crisis action team immediately after the second WTC tower was hit, yet does not know the time fighter jets were scrambled. These questions have yet to e adequately answered.

Jared Israel's questions are legitimate, and were in fact asked by U.S. senators. Branding Jared Israel's questions a fantasy because the U.S government would never do such a thing does not answer these questions. The conclusion -- was it negligence or intentional or neither --- is less important initially than just getting a plausible explanation. Which I have yet to see.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

7 Jan 2002

Re: FAQ # 2 (expanded) - "Planes DID scramble on 9-11. Emperor's Clothes is wrong."

Our military establishment, on which we spend billions per year, has provided no reasonable explanation for their failure to defend the country.

Since posting last night, I read in the Atlantic Monthly of December 2001 that there are two precedents for terrorists hijacking planes for suicide attacks on cities --- "the 1986 hijacking in Karachi of a Pan Am plane,which the terrorists planned to crash into the center of Tel Aviv, and the 1994 hijacking in Algiers of an Air France plane by members of the Armed Islamic Group, who planned to crash it into the heart of Paris." (Atlantic Montlhy 12/01 p. 139, book review of Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War, available online at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/hoffmanbooks.htm )

This places into question military statements that planners had never conceived of the possibility of such an attack.

It would be interesting to know what happened in those hijackings --- were they thwarted and how?

Frank, why is it surprising that I ask for a plausible explanation of the military's actions and inactions on 9/11?

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

8 Jan 2002

Re: FAQ # 2 (expanded) - "Planes DID scramble on 9-11. Emperor's Clothes is wrong."

I'm not stating that these reports support the argument made by Jared. They could lead to a much different conclusion. They could also be a diversion from a much more disturbing conclusion, that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen as a means of building support for an already- planned invasion of Afghanistan, of destroying civil liberties, and of completing America's transformation into a police state of, by, and for the corporations. Which is what I see happening, whether it was planned or opportunistic.

Frank, you refuse to consider the possibility that persons within the U.S. government were somehow complicit in what happened, and seem to be deeply offended by the mere suggestion that this is worth investigating.

I heard a story which I cannot confirm,and may not be true, but still allows a useful exercise:

An allegation was repeated in a U.S. newspaper that the Russian government, or persons within the government, bombed or allowed to be bombed the department store in Moscow as a means of bolstering waning support for the war in Chechnya.

My question for you, Frank, is whether you would be willing to consider the possibility that such a thing could happen in Russia? How about in Iraq? Some banana republic? If so, why not in the United States?

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

8 Jan 2002

Re: FAQ # 2 (expanded) - "Planes DID scramble on 9-11. Emperor's Clothes is wrong."

I did further research on the 1986 Karachi and 1994 Algiers hijackings. The Atlantic Monthly article is the only source claiming that the Karachi hijackers planned to suicide bomb Tel Aviv -- all other accounts state that the plan was to compel release of prisoners in Cyprus. This hijacking was stopped on the ground because the hijackers couldn't get to the upper level cockpit quick enough and the pilots escaped. The Air France plane hijacked in Algiers had to land in Marseille because it ran out of fuel and commandos retook the plane. The French authorities stated that the intent was to blow up the plane over Paris. I find it hard to believe the counterterrorism planners and the military did not develop plans to respond to incidents such as this.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0201&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

11 Jan 2002

Re: FAQ

>#Wingnut, beyond its basic meaning I am lost?#

Sorry for the colloquialism. I think you might say "nutter." "Wingnut" is American for someone who is willing to entertain the possibility that people within the government would attack American citizens, and/or believe in the Illuminati and lizard people ala David Icke. I am within the former group, as I believe all citizens should be. I am not within the latter group, though I find myself in agreement with some of what they write about the real world. I assure you that gives me great pause.

># My comment re- fantasy related to his over-all approach, opinions, hearsay, rumour, mixed in with non-facts, all claimed to be evidence and a conclusion, or at least a very strong hint of a USA government active participation, when a far more likely reason other than those given was at worse, an attempt to cover up incompetence. # >

I see Jared quoting mainstream newspapers, and asking logical questions about inconsistent or implausible official stories. Now it could be there was a sound national security reason for the story to change after a few days to incorporate the fact (claim?) that jets took off from Langley. For example, not revealing capabilities/vulnerabilities for response to new attack. But for a people wanting a plausible explanation for why their military failed to protect them in the first place, it seems suspicious for the story to change. Not that the new fact creates an plausible explanation.

>#Yes Jared's so called "only logical conclusion" is the one he favours, it is the target and probably minimum target of his discourse, he builds on flimsy foundations and reaches a conclusion that fits his apparent agenda of attacking the governments the "West"#

Even if Jared has reached a wrong conclusion about the governments of the West based on a flimsy foundation, how does that compare with the governments of the West, who have killed thousands of Afghans and revoked civil liberties based on flimsy foundations?

These flimsy foundations, at least as revealed to the public, are (1) that Osama did it, the purported basis for attacking Afghanistan, and (2) that the attacks could have been stopped if it weren't for restraints on law enforcement and intelligence, which is the unsupported premise of the "USA Patriot Act." (abominable name!!!)

>#Yes I am offended that anyone should be accused of complicity in such a horrendous act when the justification is so utterly flimsy.# >

Fair enough. I agree that accusations should not be made lightly, though somehow this standard goes out the window when its time for demonization of the leader of a country the U.S. wants to attack.

I think there are enough unanswered questions to require a congressional investigation.

These questions are laid out at:

http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/index.htm

>#My previous remarks on conditions for a statement of possibilities holds, the countries you name pick up more weighting due to their human rights records. #

My country has a record of killing its own citizens. Usually, but not always, its citizens in uniform, and over a long period. I refer to atomic testings in Utah, Gulf War syndrome, anthrax vacccinations. Many are now pointing to the Operation Northwood plan of the early 1960s, in which military planners allegedly considered the possibility of a terrorist attack on U.S. citizens to discredit Cuba and build support for military action.

"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

Not on the scale of 9/11, but the concept is the same.

>#I m not really very satisfied with my response, but it is all I can manage for the time being, enjoy your reading of Jared's FAQ, I sure he will be most grateful and I am sure his need is greater than mine# >

I think Jared is doing the American people a great service and is a true patriot. So am I and everyone else who cares enough about their country to criticize its government. If Jared derives satisfaction from that fine, but I don't think he is starving for my or anyone else's affirmation.

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

1 Feb 2002

Re: "911: LETTING IT HAPPEN," By Ken McCarthy

The McCarthy piece provides other indications that the possibility of terrorists hijacking of planes must have been foreseen. I've already mentioned actual precedents: the 1994 hijacking in Algiers where terrorists were foiled in plan to suicide attack Pairs, and possibly the 1986 hijacking in Karachi (reports vary as to the intent of the terrorists in the latter case).

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&F=P...

Re: "911: LETTING IT HAPPEN," By Ken McCarthy

>comment that Middle Eastern terrorists have been training for this exact >kind of mission since the 1980s is doubtful if "exact" is really meant, >however it is not important.

Well of course it is important --- "exact" means that the specific means of attack by hijacked plane was considered. This means two things:

1. Military responses to this scenario should have been in place,

2. Reports of a Minnesota flight instructor about a suspicious guy taking flying lessons should have been taken much more seriously; instead FBI agents in Minnesota were hindered in the investigation by their superiors.

===========================

and so on.