anyone actually read Pop. Mech. Debunking?

[lucifershammer]

i finally got around to reading the popular mechanics debunking of 9/11 myths.

i actually laughed out loud more than once. they claim something as FACT when all it is is someones testimony, except with a "you have to believe me because my story is so sad" feel to it. while denouncing the CLAIM of someone with a testimony that is the complete opposite.

and their stereotype of "conspiracy theorists" was hilarious.

though they did give me pause and make me question a few details of the towers' collapse.

but its just a small book (i read it in less than a day) concentrating on a just a few details of the whole story,(a few of which i had never even heard of) and completely ignoring what i consider to be some of the most damning evidence.

[john white]

Of course, the popular mechanics debunking has been thoroughly pwned by David Ray Griffen in his book, "debunking 9/11 debunking", which has led to the latest sceptic counter version, "debunking debunking 9/11 debunking", where the official story defense has basically got so ludicrous as to take any tiny remote possibility that might just possibly at an extreme stretch continue to support the official story, and avow religously thats what must have happened because its insane to think any other way

Of course, now Keane and Hamilton have abandonned the credibility of the 9/11 Commission that they ran and declared "we woz lied to!" the whole sceptic case is deeply deeply in the crap

[helloperator]

I've been out of the loop so to speak with the whole 911 issue on the internet and elsewhere. I used to read all I could about it, but got very lost when so many people had such borish attitudes to anyone who questioned the official story.

So, yeah, I have looked into the Popular Mechanics...but unlike you OPer...I didn't find it funny at all. I find it and anyone who shares its views and stance to be very, very sad.

So anyway, here I am looking into 911 again...what's the go? Are there still vicious defenders of the official story?

[lucifershammer]

yes, i am waiting for the debunking 9/11 debunking in the mail. was hoping to have had it this past friday, so i could read them both hand in hand, but it should be here today hopefully.

[sunyatta60]

Where is the website that debunks popular Mechanics?
And what hit the pentagon?

[sensimillia]

And what hit the pentagon?


most likely a plane, but if it was THE plane, nobody knows for now...

[hagbard_celine]

I read it. I started a critique of it, but there was so much wrong with it that I only got as far as the second chapter!:eek::D

[cyince]

Of course, the popular mechanics debunking has been thoroughly pwned by David Ray Griffen in his book, "debunking 9/11 debunking", which has led to the latest sceptic counter version, "debunking debunking 9/11 debunking", where the official story defense has basically got so ludicrous as to take any tiny remote possibility that might just possibly at an extreme stretch continue to support the official story, and avow religously thats what must have happened because its insane to think any other way

Of course, now Keane and Hamilton have abandonned the credibility of the 9/11 Commission that they ran and declared "we woz lied to!" the whole sceptic case is deeply deeply in the crap

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

I'm going to pose this question against my better judgment.

What do you feel is your strongest piece of evidence against the 'official theory. Or what piece of evidence do you feel hasn't been debunked?

[sensimillia]

What do you feel is your strongest piece of evidence against the 'official theory

without going into details, i would say the gouvernments trouble and effort in sweeping a real investigation under the rug, speaks volumes...

[cyince]

without going into details, i would say the gouvernments trouble and effort in sweeping a real investigation under the rug, speaks volumes...

I'm not sure i follow. There was an FBI investigation. There was a CIA investigation. A the 9/11 commission (a contentious issue i know). A NIST investigation. A FEMA investigation. A FDNY investigation. As well as several other investigations.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/listofresponders%26investigators

All of their findings are easily accessible.

I've sort of addressed the investigation issue in another thread
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15617

[john white]

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

I'm going to pose this question against my better judgment.

What do you feel is your strongest piece of evidence against the 'official theory. Or what piece of evidence do you feel hasn't been debunked?

Proven prior knowledge and intellegence agency protection of the patsies within the US for the two years before 9/11. Puts us at LIHOP at a minumum

"What brought the towers down" "What hit the Pentagon" etc etc etc is fluff in comparison, "Inside job" is the ONLY credible way the attacks could have taken place

[cyince]

Proven prior knowledge and intellegence agency protection of the patsies within the US for the two years before 9/11. Puts us at LIHOP at a minumum

When you say proven prior knowledge, what specifically do you mean?

It has been shown that the hijackers several of them were on watch lists, and in spite of this were allowed visas etc. I believe there was defiantly incompetence and almost a complete lack of communication between intelligence agencies, and law enforcement. This however doesn't mean that people in the US government/intelligence community knew the attack was going to happen. Look at Tennant's book, he basically says there was an intelligence breakdown and he implicates many in the administration and agency in the break down.

[john white]

When you say proven prior knowledge, what specifically do you mean?

LOL! How about clear uneqiuvable warnings of both date and targets delivered by a multitude of foreign powers?

Out of interest, have you actually watched "press for truth" or looked into the information of the Jersey Girls and Paul Thompson?

I have a feeling that, if your experiance is limited simply to circular debates on JREF, your 9/11 knowledge may be far less complete than you might think

It always gets me, a forum dedicated to the legacy of a proffesional Liar (by defination, an illusionist) being so dedicated to believing authority does not lie to us...

[cyince]

LOL! How about clear uneqiuvable warnings of both date and targets delivered by a multitude of foreign powers?

Out of interest, have you actually watched "press for truth" or looked into the information of the Jersey Girls and Paul Thompson?

I have a feeling that, if your experiance is limited simply to circular debates on JREF, your 9/11 knowledge may be far less complete than you might think

It always gets me, a forum dedicated to the legacy of a proffesional Liar (by defination, an illusionist) being so dedicated to believing authority does not lie to us...

I do not believe my 9/11 knowledge to be complete by any account. I don't claim that the JREF forum is the be all end all of information. However to simply dismiss it and ignore any evidence presented there is closed minded. (Is the David Icke forum really the place to attack another's credibility?) I think most of the posters on the conspiracy forum (at JREF) come off as arrogant ****'ers, and i understand why any one who disagrees with them would avoid it. That alone doesn't disqualify their reasoning and evidence that is presented there.

My experience of 9/11 is its something i wish to discuss and learn more about, and I'm fascinated by the conspiracy angle. I'm about to look into 'press for truth'

You you have a link for the "clear uneqiuvable warnings of both date and targets delivered by a multitude of foreign powers?"

[john white]

Well heres a few bits n peices to get us started....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

Released September 8th; a video from the families who fought to create The 9/11 Comission -- and succeeded

Headline: LA Weekly reported ... all » Mahmmud Ahmed (Top ISI Official) ordered the transfer of funds from Pakistani banks to Florida, where it was picked up and distributed by Mohammed Atta to the 9/11 hijackers via money orders throughout the United States to sponsor the attacks.

This documentary presents the many-faceted events that led up to, and then scrutinizes, the 9/11 Comission hearings. Massive injustices and mis-representations are brought to light and "exposed" by respected members of the mainstream American media, and from the families themselves in the narrative of events that shaped most greatly our world today;

"9/11: Press for Truth"

The families present their 2 1/2 year struggle to create an investigation and inquiry into the events of 9/11 -- which was at first heavily resisted and even explicity prohibited by the President and Vice President. For an example of contrast in funding; the internal disruption of a Clinton-Lewisnki "sex scandal" the event was awarded a budget of 100 million dollars in total. Initially the 9/11 Comission was only alotted 3 million dollars and their time-limit was severly cut beyond the expecations of those who brought it into existence

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html

Did Bush Know?
:: Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures ::

by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
This is an edited version of Chapter 4 from the explosive 400-page exposé, "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001", by the leading British political scientist and human rights activist Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in Brighton, UK. This book was featured on Barry Zwicker’s MediaFile documentary series, ‘The Great Deception: The War on Terrorism – An Alternative View?’, Vision TV, Canada (February 4, 2002): "The most complete book I know of, at this time, summarizing the relevant background and foreground intersecting upon the events of September 11, 2001."

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

:: Chapter 4. Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures ::

Using Planes as Bombs

Al-Qaeda’s Plans: Project Bojinka

Post-Bojinka Intelligence Gathering

Air Authorities Were Warned of Bojinka

Intensification of Surveillance After Confirmation of Bojinka Plans

High-Level Government Blocks on Intelligence Investigations

Multiple Intelligence Warnings Converged on 11th September

11th September Warnings Were Not Ignored by U.S. Authorities

The U.S. Intelligence Community

(Continued at length)

http://www.apfn.org/APFN/WTC_whistleblower.htm

Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate
by Jim Hogue

INTRODUCTION: Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar, beginning in December of 2001, began filing reports to their superiors at the FBI. These reports could lead to the collapse of a corrupt power structure that has a stranglehold on the very institutions that are obligated to control it. We cannot excuse these institutions, for while they fiddle, they pass death sentences on their own troops, and on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
On April 30th, Sibel Edmonds was my guest for 50 minutes on WGDR radio. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview. The editing is for the sake of a more readable piece.
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator. 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.
"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."
-Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml


Foreknowledge of 9-11
Transcript of Interview With Wayne Madsen and Rep. Mark Foley, Fox News Network

Fox News, Fox Hannity and Comes Show, 15 April 2002
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca , 17 April 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRG's Global Outlook, premiere issue on "Stop the War" provides detailed documentation on the war and September 11 Order/subscribe. Consult Table of Contents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GUESTS: Wayne Madsen, Mark Foley

BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes

[BODY: THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COLMES: Welcome back to HANNITY & COLMES. I'm Alan Colmes. [...snip...]

But first, is it possible that the Bush administration knew about the terrorist attacks on September 11 before they happened and failed to warn anybody? Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney thinks so -- in an interview with a Berkeley radio station, accused the Bush administration of deliberately covering it up so they could make money off what she called America's new war.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY (D), GEORGIA: We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, delivered one such warning -- those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11. What did this administration know and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew? And why did they not warn the innocent people of New York?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COLMES: Joining us tonight is Florida Congressman Mark Foley and Wayne Madsen, an investigative journalist who has worked with Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney for three years.

Now, before I defend Cynthia McKinney's right to say what she said, Mr. Madsen, would you agree that to suggest that the United States or anybody in this country knew or -- in the government had advance knowledge of this is preposterous?

WAYNE MADSEN, FRIEND OF REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: I don't think so.

I think what the congresswoman is asking is that, with the worst intelligence failure in the history of the United States, why cannot we have in this country a full independent congressional investigation of who knew what when. How was all this intelligence...

COLMES: I agree there should be.

MADSEN: Yes.

COLMES: But she went further than that. She accused the Bush administration, if not Bush himself, of knowing in advance, because he or his father would benefit because of The Carlyle Group, which we'll get to in a moment. She accused him of having advance knowledge of this. Do you concur?

MADSEN: Well, you know who else is calling for an investigation in the financial

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: But I'm not talking about an investigation. I'm talking about the accusation that the president -- forget the investigation for the moment. I want to talk about an accusation that President Bush had advance knowledge. Do you agree with that?

MADSEN: Judicial Watch is asking for the same investigation of

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: I didn't say investigation, sir.

With all due respect, my question had to do with whether you concur that President Bush had advance knowledge of what happened on September 11. Do not use the word investigation, I beg of you, in your answer.

MADSEN: I won't use it. All I'll say is, let the facts come out. And that's all Congresswoman McKinney is asking for at this point in time.

COLMES: Well, that's not all she's asking for. I would disagree that that's all she's saying.

Congressman Foley, welcome to the program. I think she should have the right to say what she wants to say, even if we think it may be a little out there. Charlie Norwood has asked for a boycott of Cynthia McKinney until anti-war statements are retracted. The Southeastern Legal Foundation wants congressional sanctions for what she said. I think that's going too far.

Should she be punished for saying something, ludicrous though it is? Should she be punished for that?

REP. MARK FOLEY (R), FLORIDA: Well, Alan, I think we all have a responsibility as members of the United States Congress to use our words judiciously.

And I think what she's done here is absolutely crossed the line. There's a difference between trying to determine what the CIA knew before September 11, where there may have been warning signs. We should be looking at all of these things. I don't disagree that we need to investigate things prior to and after. But the allegation that somehow Mr. Bush and his associates knew about this and did nothing, simply so a Carlyle Group in Washington could profit by these acts, is simply ludicrous. It's insulting. It is asinine.

HANNITY: Congressman Foley, welcome back to the program. Sean Hannity here.

FOLEY: Thanks, Sean.

HANNITY: By the way, it was good to see you in your home territory last weekend in Palm Beach.

FOLEY: Thanks, Sean.

HANNITY: Good to meet your mom, by the way, very nice lady.

Look, it's more than this. This country is at war right now against terror. This president has been doing everything he can to fight this battle. Without any evidence whatsoever, she makes this reckless and irresponsible comment.

What should Congress do in this case? She's one of 435 people that is supposed to lead this country in a responsible way. What should Congress do?

FOLEY: Well, we really have to look at what she's done on the record.

I did not disagree that Barbara Lee -- when we had the vote on the war itself, she had a right to say what she did. She had a right to vote the way she did. But now we've gone past a right of defending your party, or at least your values and your views, to making an outrageous attack, which is both libelous and slanderous, against some credible companies and people. So either put up the facts or retract your statement.

HANNITY: You're right.

Well, Mr. Madsen, I'll go to you here. And I expect a direct answer to a very simple question. What evidence do you have that our president was, in any way, had any knowledge of these attacks? Do you have any evidence at all?

MADSEN: Sean, the evidence is out there. It was --

HANNITY: Wait a minute.

MADSEN: One place reported Salman Rushdie had been warned two weeks before September 11 not to fly. It was your paper, Mr. Murdoch's paper, "The Times of London."

HANNITY: What evidence, sir, do you have that links our president to that knowledge? Do you have any direct evidence, yes or no?

MADSEN: There is ample evidence out there reported in the media about advance knowledge of what happened on September 11. [...snip...]

Mr. Madsen, look, I don't want you to tell me evidence is out there. This charge is against the president of the United States of America at a time we're at war in a conflict. You're making a charge that he has knowledge, prior knowledge of the September 11 attack. And I ask you, sir, specifically, what evidence do you have?

MADSEN: There was a warning that the congresswoman referred to from President Putin before the attack. ..

HANNITY: A warning to who?

MADSEN: ... warnings from French intelligence, Israeli, to the United States, FBI and to the CIA. And I find it strange that, here we suffered the worst intelligence failure in the country's history and George Tenet is still director of the CIA. Can you imagine if they were airliners that crashed into buildings in downtown Tokyo?

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: That's a different issue, Mr. Madsen.

But, Mr. Madsen, an intelligence link or survey or something that came in does not represent -- in any court of law, sir, does not represent...

MADSEN: Why does...

HANNITY: Hang on -- enough evidence to convict -- see, this is what's going on here.

Congressman, I'll throw it to you. This is just an irresponsible, irrational political assault on the president while we're at war. That's what's so offensive here to me.

FOLEY: It really is.

And she may have been speaking to a Berkeley crowd. And she may have thought she was talking to the right audience. But, again, our statements are weighed. The people that listen to our voices may respond and say, "They have credible evidence." So, all of the sudden, in the national media, Cynthia McKinney is making allegations that our president somehow is sitting there

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: She's saying he's a traitor that sold us out and sold us out for money. And I asked Mr. Madsen 40 times tonight, give me evidence -- no direct evidence, no answer to a direct question.

And this is a level of irresponsible -- it's almost on the verge, it's become so predictable. Social Security -- "Republicans have a secret plan to destroy it after the election."

FOLEY: Well, in "The Washington Post" today, Cynthia says she has no evidence. However, if they would investigate, maybe some evidence would be turned up. So it's like, what is she saying?

(CROSSTALK)

MADSEN: Why is the Bush administration against an investigation?

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Mr. Madsen, you're a journalist, sir. Would you even print this on this flimsy amount of evidence that you have here?

MADSEN: I've read the work of many journalists: "The Times of London," the BBC, "Der Spiegel" in Germany. They have all been reporting the same thing about advance knowledge. Is everybody crazy? Are all these journalists not allowed to express their opinion?

COLMES: Cynthia McKinney did not say that she didn't believe the president had knowledge. She said she's not aware of any evidence showing the president personally profited from attacks. She didn't distance herself from the knowledge aspect of what she said. But I'm going to move aside, because we're not going to agree on this. I think she was absolutely wrong to say it.

But, Congressman Foley, the idea of investigating whether what happened between the FBI, the CIA, the INS, a lack of communication, looking at relationships between the oil industry and current policies, between the defense industry and current policies, there is where I think she had a point. And shouldn't that be investigated? Shouldn't we see why we had private energy meetings, what the relationship is between these energy executives and the vice president and Halliburton and the Carlyle Group? Doesn't that make sense?

FOLEY: Well, no, Alan, now you're trying to make an assumption that somehow all of that ties together. I will agree...

COLMES: No, I'm saying investigate it.

FOLEY: If Cynthia McKinney had asked for an investigation -- and all of us want to get to the facts -- of what was known prior to, who was given information, where did this lead us, and what shall we learn from it in the future, I would be standing beside Cynthia McKinney saying: "Let's go. Let's proceed."

COLMES: So, you'd be willing to investigate the INS, the CIA, willing to investigate the oil companies, their relationship to this administration, the oil people in this administration, and what their relationship is to these companies? You would stand behind that?

FOLEY: I have no problem with any investigation, but let's not make a comparison between people who have been killed and people who are profiting from their death. I think this is the outrageous part of it. I will look at those situations, but I will not accept Cynthia McKinney's bald-faced lies and the kind of reprehensible statements she's made.

COLMES: I agree with that. But the investigation aspect of it I think is something -- maybe she has a point on that one.

I know you want to respond, Wayne. Go ahead.

MADSEN: Well, it's typical. Attack the messenger.

I mean, isn't it funny? The Republicans, when Bill Clinton was president, they dragged him into every possible conspiracy theory, except for linking him to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. I mean, now we see the same people saying Cynthia McKinney has no right to her opinion. She's out there. I think it's nonsense.

FOLEY: Wayne, let me just say this. When they said that President Clinton launched the war simply to take away the Monica Lewinsky story, I absolutely refuted that and said that was absolutely wrong and unnecessary. I have not let false statements stand, whether they were Democratically directed or Republican directed. I think, in this particular instance, she has a fiduciary, as a member of Congress, to tell the facts and not lie.

HANNITY: Absolutely. Good line.

MADSEN: I think the Congress has a responsibility to investigate.

HANNITY: Congressman Foley -- we're going to give you the last word. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Madsen. Appreciate your time tonight.

[cyince]

Just watched Press for Truth. Overall it was an informative film. The major points I took from the film was; There was no doubt a high degree of incompetence leading up to, and following the attack. Given that, coupled with the way it was presented I can see how people entertain the notion of a LIHOP scenario. That however doesn't change my mind.

I think one of the points the movie tries to make is that the media didn't do its job, (especially in the first 1/4). Then the film introduces the 9/11 time line which is based completely on media accounts, and from there uses the media, and media clips to source the rest of the movie. I thought that was a little bit disingenuous.

[lizzy]

Popular mechanics was bought by Herst news corp about 5 yrs ago, it then became the Elites' "scientific" dis info tool for the 'regular' guy......
lizzy.

[john white]

Do you know what "burying a story" means Cyince, and how it is acheived? Nonetheless, that does not make using media information to construct a timeline "disingenous": its called dot connection. Think of it as a forensic re-construction of truth from shattered fragments

How to bury a story

The best way to deal with stories that might prove to be embarrassing is to make sure that the fewest possible number of people get to read them. It is called news management. And the best way to do that is to make sure that the news breaks very late on a Friday, when the Saturday editions of the national newspapers are going to press and all but the most dedicated newsmen have gone home. That way by the time the Sunday papers are being prepared there have been other stories, particularly in the sporting world, and thus the impact of the story is lessened and it gets less space in the newspapers.


Managing the news refers to acts which are intended to influence the presentation of information within the news media. The expression managing the news is often used in a negative sense.

An example cited by the Communication, Cultural and Media Studies infobase concerns the February 1996 Scott Report on arms sales to Iraq. In the United Kingdom, the report was given early to certain officials.

People or organizations who wish to lessen the publicity concerning bad news may choose to release the information late on a Friday, giving journalists less time to pursue the story.

Staying "on message" is a technique intended to limit questions and attention to a narrow scope favorable to the subject.


Main website for Thompson timeline:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/

Short summary of key points:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg

9/11 Timeline
Two-page Summary of 9/11 Timeline

To verify 9/11 timeline statements, use links to articles on major media websites




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. [ABC News, 5/1/01, Pentagon Documents]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996–2001: Federal authorities are aware for years before 9/11 that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden are receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confesses that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, CBS, 5/30/02, more]

1996–2001: On multiple occasions spies give detailed reports on bin Laden's location. Each time, the CIA director or top White House officials prevent bin Laden's elimination. [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04, New York Times, 12/30/01, more]

2000–2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC, 10/23/02] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02, more]

2000–2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they’re shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04, Military District of Washington, 11/3/00, New York Times, 10/3/01, more]

Jan 2001: After the Nov 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01, more]

Spring 2001: A series of military and governmental policy documents is released that seek to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. One advocates presidential subterfuge and hiding the reasons for warfare “as a necessity for mobilizing public support.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02, more]

May 2001: For the third time, US security chiefs reject Sudan’s offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it “the worst single intelligence failure in the business.” [Guardian, 9/30/01, more]

June-Aug 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerts the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warns the US that bin Laden is planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warns of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02, Independent, 9/7/02, CNN, 9/12/02, more]

July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden reportedly receives kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Dr. Callaway declines to comment. During his stay, bin Laden is allegedly visited by one or two CIA agents. [Guardian, 11/1/01, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/01, London Times 11/1/01, UPI, 11/1/01, more]

July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] In May 2002, Ashcroft walks out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [Fox News/AP, 5/16/02, more]

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush receives an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the briefing specifically mentions the WTC. Yet Bush later claims it “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Washington Post, 4/12/04, Briefing, 8/6/01, more]

Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor says he’s trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the WTC.” [Senate Report (Hill #2), 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02, more]

Sep 10, 2001: A number of top Pentagon brass suddenly cancel travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. Why isn't this news spread widely? [Newsweek, 9/13/01, Newsweek, 9/24/01, more]

9/11/2001: Data recovery experts extract data from 32 damaged WTC computer drives. The data reveals a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through WTC computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01, more]

9/11/2001: Described as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency was scheduled for an exercise on 9/11 at 9:00 AM in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [USA Today/AP, 8/22/02, more]

9/11/2001: Hours after the attacks, a "shadow government" is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know this government-in-waiting had been established. [CBS, 3/2/02, Washington Post, 3/2/02, more]

9/11/2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events within hours of the attacks. The tape is never turned over to the FBI. It is later illegally destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it. [Washington Post, 5/6/04, New York Times, 5/6/04]

Sep 13-19, 2001: Bin Laden's family is taken under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point. They leave the country by private plane when airports reopen days after the attacks. [New York Times, 9/30/01, Boston Globe, 9/20/01, more]

Sep 15-16, 2001: Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, may have had training at secure US military installations. [Newsweek, 9/15/01, Washington Post, 9/16/01, New York Times, 9/15/01, more]

Sept 20, 2001: Several 9/11 hijackers later mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report turn up alive. "Five of the alleged hijackers have emerged, alive, innocent and astonished to see their names and photographs appearing on satellite television...The hijackers were using stolen identities." [quote in London Times, 9/20/01, see also BBC, 9/23/01, more]

Dec 2001-Feb 2002: The US engineers the rise to power of two former Unocal Oil employees: Hamid Karzai, the interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the US envoy. The big American bases created in the Afghan war are identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline. [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02, more]

May 17, 2002: Dan Rather says that he and other journalists haven't been properly investigating since 9/11. He graphically describes the pressures to conform that built up after the attacks. [Guardian, 5/17/02, more]

May 23, 2002: President Bush says he is opposed to establishing an independent commission to probe 9/11. [CBS, 5/23/02] Vice President Cheney earlier opposed any public hearings on 9/11. [Newsweek, 2/4/02, more]

May 30, 2002: FBI Agent Wright formally accuses the FBI of deliberately curtailing investigations that might have prevented 9/11. He is threatened with retribution if he talks to Congress about this. [Fox News, 5/30/02, more]

July 22, 2004: The 9/11 Commission Report is published. It fails to mention that a year before the attacks a secret Pentagon project had identified four 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta. The Commission spokesperson initially states members were not informed of this, but later acknowledges they were. [New York Times, 8/11/05, more]

2004 - 2005: A growing number of top government officials and public leaders express disbelief in the official story of 9/11. 100 prominent leaders and 40 9/11 family members sign a statement calling for an unbiased inquiry into evidence suggesting high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the attacks to occur. [Various Publications]

Aug 9, 2006: A book by 9/11 Commission chairmen Kean and Hamilton outlines repeated deceptions by the Pentagon and FAA, including the timelines of Flights 77 and 93. CNN News: "The fact that the government would...perpetuate the lie suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on." [CNN, 8/9/06 , MSNBC/AP, 8/4/06, more]

2006-2007: Over 50 former senior government officials and more than 100 highly respected professors publicly criticize The 9/11 Commission Report as highly flawed, and call for a new, independent investigation. [Professors, Officials]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a 10-page summary of the 9/11 timeline, www.WantToKnow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
For a powerful, engaging video revealing lots more on 9/11: www.WantToKnow.info/911video
For other reliable resources on the 9/11 timeline and cover-up: 9/11 information center

9/11 Timeline


Overwhelmed by this material? Click here


Email this page | Print this page | Bookmark this page

Top of page | Home | Spread the Word | News | What You Can Do | About Us | Contact Us | Donate

[cyince]

Do you know what "burying a story" means Cyince, and how it is acheived? Nonetheless, that does not make using media information to construct a timeline "disingenous": its called dot connection


I don't mean the time line it self is disingenuous, i mean the tone of the film; to create the premise that the media 'didn't do its job' all the while using media clips, and media stories for the film (to apparently show the media didn't report these events) to prove its premise.

The time line has hundreds of sources, I don't see how thats burying a story. The film has dozens of clips of nightly news shows discussing the issues, clips of the Sunday news shows discussing the issues. It shows books written on the issues discussed, magazine articles on the issues, news paper articles etc.

[cyince]

A number of the key points in the time line have been shown to be incorrect. Or they are taken out of context for effect. Hijackers alive Bin Ladin visited by CIA etc. There has been show to be no suspicious trading, the warnings about not flying greatly exaggerated etc. Ashcroft for instance was to fly private flights for official buisness, but still flew commercial for personal travel.

[john white]

I don't mean the time line it self is disingenuous, i mean the tone of the film; to create the premise that the media 'didn't do its job' all the while using media clips, and media stories for the film (to apparently show the media didn't report these events) to prove its premise.

The time line has hundreds of sources, I don't see how thats burying a story. The film has dozens of clips of nightly news shows discussing the issues, clips of the Sunday news shows discussing the issues. It shows books written on the issues discussed, magazine articles on the issues, news paper articles etc.

I'm not suprised you don't.. for a start theres the "plausable deniability" aspect to deny news is buried when in fact, it certainly is... well thats "implausability aspect" really. Pulling together diamonds in the mud snippets via filtering the simply massive amount of MSM paff that certainly didnt address the issues represents an exemplorary peice of investigation, impossible for any individual before the internet age, that reveals at least more of the true scope of that which was hidden: and of course, what did get at least some molecules of publicity oxygen is only a tiny amount of what there is to find

Mind you, now the massive quantity of testimony that didnt make it past Zelicow during the 9/11 commission has now been destroyed, sources outside of the fragments Thompson has pulled together are harder and harder to find

Its too late though: the message has been heard

[john white]

A number of the key points in the time line have been shown to be incorrect. Or they are taken out of context for effect.

Hijackers alive

Damage limitation spin: but the names have never been revised

Bin Ladin visited by CIA

Happened

There has been show to be no suspicious trading


Pull the other one! The greatest peice of "coincidence theory" ever, pulled by the commission, who simply (and imbecilically) said that becuase the traders were not arabs, they couldnt have had fore-knowledge, so they can't be guilty....

the warnings about not flying greatly exaggerated etc. Ashcroft for instance was to fly private flights for official buisness, but still flew commercial for personal travel.

Maybe: or maybe after-the-fact massaging

But the warnings were still given

I'm going to take a guess that your american cyince: becuase one good thing about the UK, for all the problems here, is that we have no comfortable illusions left about government corruption, its reality, and how it works: far too much has been exposed

[cyince]

I'm not suprised you don't.. for a start theres the "plausable deniability" aspect to deny news is buried when in fact, it certainly is... well thats "implausability aspect" really. Pulling together diamonds in the mud snippets via filtering the simply massive amount of MSM paff that certainly didnt address the issues represents an exemplorary peice of investigation, impossible for any individual before the internet age, that reveals at least more of the true scope of that which was hidden: and of course, what did get at least some molecules of publicity oxygen is only a tiny amount of what there is to find

Mind you, now the massive quantity of testimony that didnt make it past Zelicow during the 9/11 commission has now been destroyed, sources outside of the fragments Thompson has pulled together are harder and harder to find

Its too late though: the message has been heard

I'm not even sure what we are debating here anymore.
You think that the media has/is covering up or ignored up aspects of 9/11, presumably by coercion or complicity, or ignorance.
I disagree. However I don't think we are that far apart on our views of the media. I do not trust the main stream media, and it pains me to defend them (and i don't want to come of as an apologist). I can see the point; some people feel there wasn't enough emphasis placed on some of the reports following 9/11, specifically reports that exposed intelligence failures. I feel there are benign reasons for this.

I think another issue we can agree on is the 9/11 commission defiantly comes across not so well. Its something I'm going to need to look into more.


I'm going to take a guess that your american cyince: becuase one good thing about the UK, for all the problems here, is that we have no comfortable illusions left about government corruption, its reality, and how it works: far too much has been exposed

I'm Canadian. I have no illusions about the government. I however think its quite a leap from cronyism, financial corruption, incompetence, abuse of power, dereliction's of duties to a mass murder plot.

[john white]

It IS all about trust: and, from the POV of the powerful, maintaining the trust of the people regardless and despite the facts is the very purpose of propoganda, manipulation, spin, and much of the activity of intelligence agencies

One thing I will observe: the abuse of power ALWAYS leads to mass murder

I could post up some pictures to demonstrate that, but have to consider that wouldnt be entirely fair

[shredmasteruk]

Just because one person is a c*nt, doesn't mean that the other c*nt, who says he did it, is innocent.

There is no hard scientific evidence for the controlled demolitions theories, none, zilch, nada; and without hard facts, it really really damages the credibility of anyone who states that 9/11 was an inside job to make unprovable claims.

The Popular Mechanics book was not written to make people like Bush. Personally I think Bush is a psychopathic maniac. But they've a serious point, and David Ray Griffin, a theologian, lacks the qualifications to present an informed alternative opinion of what happened to the towers.

There are a huge number of civil engineers in this world who do not support the controlled demolitions theories put forward.

In my opinion, the 11th september conspiracy theories are a smokescreen which are distracting people from what is really going on.

The really important issues to me, the rushed through anti terror laws which erode civil liberties, the botched war 'on' terror which is really a war of terror. the damage done to Iraq, the alienation and killing of its civillians, the misconduct of soldiers, extroadinary rendition, torture, and Guantanamo bay.

[helloperator]

none, zilch, nada

I don't agree. Building 7 is exhibit a.

[shredmasteruk]

none, zilch, nada

I don't agree. Building 7 is exhibit a.

It suffered severe damage, was leaning, hours before it collapsed there was a bulge on the south west corner, firefighters were pulled out for their own safety, greenwich st was evacuated in fear of collapse.

If they were going to blow it up, why leave it burning & leaning for seven hours ?

Explosives like C4 are combustible, set fire to them and they aint gonna survive.

WTC 7 was a building with severe fires inside it. How then could demolitions charges survive 7 hours in a burning building ?

There's no evidence to suggest it was a controlled demo.

[helloperator]

Leave it burning for hours so that fire seems a reasonable cause. Maybe it was supposed to come down amidst the dust clouds of the wtc collapses, but there was a snafu.

Explosives like C4 could be fireproofed. Maybe enough C4 existed to demolish the building.

I haven't seen any pictures showing leaning. I'd like to see some. And of the severe fires too. And also of the gauge that debri caused

I'd say that because the collapse of wtc7 looked exactly like a controlled demolision, that there is some cause for concern. That it came down with the squareness and symmetry that it did, is quite interesting. That there were puffs appearing to be squibs in many of the videos I have seen is also very interesting.

If wtc7 suffered random chaotic damage, and wild uncontrolled fires, it isn't refelected in it's smooth and even collapse.

[shredmasteruk]

Its gouge, not gauge ;-).

Next, when controlled demolitions occur which use explosives to implode a building, there is a characteristic noise before the building collapses. VERY VERY loud bangs go off which can be heard miles away, puffs and flashes appear before the collapse.

This is a picture of the gash in the damaged south face:
http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/collapse/wtc7gash.jpg

This is a firefighter commenting on the building, predicting on air that it would collapse:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond...

The area around it was evacuated because of fears that it would collapse.
Surrounding buildings including the postal building were damaged by its collapse. Controlled demolitions are designed to prevent damage to surrounding buildings.

This video shows that serious smoke was coming from WTC 7:
WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube

The huge level of smoke is an indicator that there were serious fires inside.

[helloperator]

oops...a typo ;)

Yeah...well shut my mouth! There's evidence to suggest it just fell down.

Got to admit, it looked a hell of a lot like a controlled demolition