What terminology should we use to describe the efforts of those who wish to persuade the people that the Bush Administration merely let the 9-11 attacks happen on purpose?

LIHOP seems straight to the point, and appropriate.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

"Let it happen" because protocols in place would have prevented the majority of the attacks. They had to take an active role. What that role is, I don't know.

The protocols were dropped to let the terrorist Muslim suicide hijackers do their deeds. That is the let it happen on purpose view.

In general, the protocols were dropped to distract and deceive in order to pull off the deception. This is a part of the made it happen on purpose view.

If you want to classify LET IT HAPPEN as MADE IT HAPPEN, then again I ask, what would be the terminology to best differentiate the two?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

We were lied to and elements within our Government and others have earned the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11? As opposed to your way which indicates you know what happened on 9/11, which you do not.

What is my way?

I know some things that happened or didn't happen on 9-11. Hijackers flying airplanes - 99% sure that didn't happen. Hijackers lining the towers with explosives - 99% sure that didn't happen.

LIHOP is bad for the truth movement because it propagates terrorist Muslim suicide hijackers and it justifies the wars in the Middle East to many.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

And know exactly who was flying them, etc...? I find that hard to believe. Yet, another theory. As I told Adam, you should read this.

You seem to live in a world where there is no such thing as crazy muslim terrorists. And after all the hard work the U.S. Israel and Great Britain, have gone to create them and put their asset Bin Laden in charge of them.

That's like saying Oswald didn't kill Kennedy because he never existed.

The Military Industrial Complex needs enemies. The USSR really did exist. Oswald really lived, and the Mujihaden really had training camps in Afghanistan. Ali Mohammad helped set it up and Brezinsky is rather proud of it.

If someone was convicted for shoplifting, the next time a shopkeeper finds stock missing they should go find, re arrest and convict the same person without the need to prove guilt right? Even if lots of hard scientific evidence suggests the shop keeper took the stock himself for an insurance scam.

"That's like saying Oswald didn't kill Kennedy because he never existed."

No, its like saying there is no proof that the planes were hijacked and flown into the buildings on 911 by the alleged hijackers.!

"No, its like saying there is no proof that the planes were hijacked and flown into the buildings on 911 by the alleged hijackers.!"

Actually there is proof. The phone calls prove it. But you'd rather go off into kookville and say that the calls are fake and it's the NWO using their fancy voice morphing technology. Guess what? You have no proof of that. These were not cell phone calls. They were air phone calls. And the "NWO" isn't going to notify the authorities that planes are hijacked and need to be intercepted 25 minutes before any plane hit any building. We could use this, as it is also proof that when the message gets to Rice and Bush they change it from a known hijacking to "a weird Accident".

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-American-Airlines.pdf

But cell phones don't work from 40,000 feet!! That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter, The calls were not cell phone calls, they were airphone calls, including Binghams, "you believe me don't you", which was in reference to the plane being hijacked.

"BINGHAM then said, "I'm on a flight from Newark to San
Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the air phone."
"......."You've got to believe me. It's true."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-19-FBI-FD302-mark-kendall-bingham2...

"Before the plane crashed, SWEENEY stated that AA flight
attendant, BETTY ONG, was in' the last row of the coach section
talking to someone on the air phone."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-American-Airlines.pdf

Flight attendants Sweeny and Ong both called the authorities on AIRPHONES telling what was going on. There was ample warning and it was known to be a terrorist attack before any plane hit any building.

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-betty-ong.pdf

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-betty-ong-tape.pdf

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-11-FBI-phone-conversation-record.p...

I explain here how this is vital evidence that you want to throw away in favor of a silly NWO f**king with victims scenio that has NO PROOF, and makes no sense....

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=104723.0

IF the towers were blown up, then the planes HAD to have been taken over by remote control. With the patsies behind the wheel.

"I see water, I see buildings! Oh my god!"

Doesn't Sweeney see buildings and water everyday on the job? LOL

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Laugh at the victims as they give you the proof that Bush and Rice knew it was no "weird accident".

I guess it never occurred to you that a plane flying low and fast in a city would be scarry, and NOT what she sees everyday.

Keep making fun of victims and heroes who actually gave us valuable evidence, and all you're doing is marginalizing this movement

I am not laughing at the victims, and I take deep offense to you saying that. "Keep making fun of victims and heroes"?! That is disgusting, and you dare bring that attitude into this discussion? Unreal. You are resulting to smear tactics. Why? That's like loose nuke and Jon Gold bringing dying first responders, and family members into every debate.

I was laughing at the ridiculousness of that hearsay evidence, and that was just the first link (I really am late, I have to leave out the door now). The guy didn't say that she said "we are flying low and fast in a city", he said that she said "i see water and buildings, oh my god" Considering she would have been looking out the side of the plane, why would that matter? His testimony is very suspect.

Try to maintain your footing, and make your way to the high ground Jim.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

This isn't my theory is better than your theory. THERE ARE FAMILY MEMBERS HURTING, AND 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS DYING That is the REALITY. You do not put forward questionable information as FACT. You do NOT put forward information that has been argued about FOR ALL ETERNITY ALREADY on a CONSISTENT basis so it can be argued about SOME MORE. You do NOT proclaim everything that doesn't coincide with what you think happened as "fake." You promote the best damn information possible AT ALL TIMES. This isn't fucking rocket science.

Gravity isn't rocket science either Jon.
And you've failed to comprehend that ...repeatedly...to the point of causing offense...
You're a self described 'veteran' in the Truth Movement...
So you've heard of William Rodriguez ?
And you still say you don't understand 'controlled demolition' because you're not qualified ?

(Needless to say I don't think all the 'controlled demolition denial' comments add any credibility to this site.)

To anything you have done for the cause of 9/11 Truth?

Thanks.

Yeah.
I speak the Truth,. And the rest is none of your business.
"Gravity". " Resistance"
Jon - look them up.

But you're a problem or potential problem to the movement or at least to this site...
So you think William Rodriguez is lying ?
What exactly is the point you're trying to make in 'controlled demolition' denial ?
What's your theory ?
You've had your ass handed to you so many times on this site - I almost feel sorry for you.
It's like deja vu all over again...

the following comment where Binkster suggests Jon is a troll was also unpublished.

And I've been promoting credible evidence of CD since 2005. And I reject divisive tactics, such as claiming everyone needs to promote/believe it. I have no issue with people who promote credible evidence- even if it's not 'all' the evidence. I do have an issue with people promoting bogus evidence, and engaging in disruptive behavior.

Here's a summary from my blog of CD evidence (suggestions welcome)
9/11 Truth, Part 7 of 11: Destruction of World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7, “The Air is Safe to Breathe” Lies & Giuliani
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/911-truth-part-7-of-11-lies-about-the-collapses-of-world-trade-center-1-2-7-and-“the-air-is-safe-to-breathe”/

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

bruno, I hope you take a 2nd look at this when you get back:

"LOL - "I see water, I see buildings! Oh my god!" - Doesn't Sweeney see buildings and water everyday on the job? LOL"

So you're suggesting that Sweeney didn't say that and Mike Woodward was lying? You didn't provide evidence, you simply speculated that "His testimony is very suspect". And you wrote "LOL"; this is what's called "making fun". Unless you have strong evidence Sweeney didn't die on that plane- and there's a lot of evidence she did- you're mocking the death of someone who died in a horrible plane crash- someone whose death was then exploited to launch wars and subvert the Constitution.

"You are resulting to smear tactics. Why? That's like loose nuke and Jon Gold bringing dying first responders, and family members into every debate."

Bringing up the first responders and family members is a "smear tactic"? Please explain.

It's a blatantly false claim that even Jon Gold- the single-most consistent advocate for the first responders and family members- brings them "into every debate". And anyway- if more people were concerned for their plight and the injustice, than for their own pet theories, that would be a good thing.

Bruno, I really hope you reconsider what you've done here, because what you've said dishonors the victims, reflects poorly on you (and the truth movement by association), and it hands the debunkers ammunition.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Do you need to be told that the 9/11 Family Members know more about 9/11 than anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and their opinions are invaluable? How many times do you need to be told that I work alongside the 9/11 Family Members, and do not use them or hide behind them? How many times do you need to be told about the reality of the situation which is that there is a HUGE amount of family members watching the names of their loved ones used to commit horrible atrocities in this country and around the world, all the while not knowing how and why their loved ones were murdered? Mentioning the plight of the 9/11 Families is not using them or hiding behind them. Making the world know of their plight as often as possible is the right thing to do.

"Maybe he doesn't bring them into every debate, but why bring them into any debate?"

I responded.