READER COMMENTS ON

"9/11 Stunner: Bush Received, Ignored Multiple Warnings of 'Imminent', 'Dramatic' Attack"

(64 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Joyce McCloy said on 9/10/2012 @ 11:11 pm PT...





The US was warned in early 2011 by Ahmad Shah Massoud, a pious Muslim known as "The Afghan Lion" or "Lion of Panjshir". Massoud warned the US govt and the world about Bin Laden in a speech to the European Parliament in April 2001. http://articles.cnn.com/...-sheikh-osama?_s=PM%3AUS Massoud was famous for repulsing the Soviets. He had some success pushing back the Taliban.

Massoud had the support of his countrymen, was a pious Muslim & supported education & women's rights.

But the US did not support him. He was assassinated on Sept 9,2001 as favor to the Taliban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 9/10/2012 @ 11:24 pm PT...





I was deployed to the Persian Gulf during the 9/11 attacks, but my brother-in-law was stationed at an Air Force base in Nebraska. His rank was Major and he was in Air Force intelligence (misnomer) attached to the Air Force 1 intelligence crew. My wife (now ex) a few days after the attacks called her brothers house to try and get some info out of him. His wife answered, said she didn't know where he was. Last she had seen of him he came home in a hurry on 9/9, packed an overnight bag with a few uniforms, told his wife to stay away from crowds and keep the kids at home, gave her a kiss and left. That's a 100% true story. Don't know what they knew, but they knew something was happening.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/10/2012 @ 11:41 pm PT...





WingnutSteve - Would love to know what your ex-wife's brother is now willing to say about his whereabouts on 9/9. Have you asked him?

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 9/11/2012 @ 12:54 am PT...





Haven't talked to him in years but when I did ask him about it he wouldn't say nuthin. He's on the straight and narrow like that with the juicy stuff because it's all top secret. Sucks to have a spy in the family who won't gossip. But he is still active duty and a flag officer, don't get there by blabbin the wrong stuff.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... molly said on 9/11/2012 @ 5:36 am PT...





wingnutsteve This is important information and I have often wondered how much was out there from many people who know and could tell us a lot. mohawknationnews published the corporations that placed the put options and would have mopped up from 9/11..proving there was prior knowledge of 9/11 by some very rich people. An Indian found out from Canadian News and copied down the corporation names. Then placed them on his refrigerator.Then the names were taken down never to be heard from again. Best I can remember , all the major airlines..Caribbean Cruise ships..military industrial complex suppliers. Last time I looked, the list was still in their archives.Bribery seems to be the order of the day for the powerful who have been controlling our country for too long. Thanks Brad for putting this post up. It is big! You and Huff Po so far see the importance. Go figure. First time for MSM to get the truth.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Joe in Syracuse said on 9/11/2012 @ 5:47 am PT...





This info has been around for quite some time if one was inclined to look for it.

All one needs to do is watch the C-SPAN Book-TV interview with Susan Lindhauer to know that the official story is a crock. The 2nd American arrested under the Patriot Act(after Padilla) was gagged for years because she took away the Govts' deniability of 9/11 foreknowledge. She is also Andy Cards cousin. Intriguing interview.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 9/11/2012 @ 7:01 am PT...





I'm sure you have all seen this before Watch it again

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 9/11/2012 @ 7:59 am PT...





Many warned them.

I began questioning the "official" story after watching PBS...

The Man Who Knew

John O'Neil the FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda warned them also.He died in the WTC two days after taking the job of head of security. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/...es/frontline/shows/knew/ (Expect a swarm of we "truthers" to comment Brad

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/11/2012 @ 8:15 am PT...





In fairness to your ex brother-in-law, WingnutSteve, his re-assignment may or may not have been classified. If it was, he may not be at liberty to discuss it with you. That doesn't mean that there is a connection between his re-assignment and 9/11.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Nunyabiz said on 9/11/2012 @ 8:40 am PT...





ooooh yeah big "stunner" there.

This has been common knowledge for 10 years just ignored by the Media and 70% of the country.

Same reason most all of the 9/11 first responders were also ignored. I am sure in another 10 years more will be admitted to. http://archive.org/details/9-11Mysteries

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... ccoaler said on 9/11/2012 @ 9:07 am PT...





R-vote-rigging on the run

http://ccoaler.blogspot....vote-rigging-on-run.html

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 9/11/2012 @ 11:48 am PT...





I have no idea what Ernie is talking about. Where was the topic of reassignment, and relating that to 9/11, ever mentioned?

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... molly said on 9/11/2012 @ 1:14 pm PT...





#10 Common knowledge? Difference in the information that people with curiosity and a smattering of internet truth finders and the young couple trying to make house payments working two and three jobs..or old people who only believe the 6 o'clock news. Or southerners going to church on Sunday earnestly trying to be good and hear that only republicans believe in God. The problem is explained in the 14 points of fascism well.6. A controlled mass media. To say that people in general know the truth is to deny reality. "Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses."

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... molly said on 9/11/2012 @ 1:17 pm PT...





Ernie Re. wingnutsteve. This is important. "Last she had seen of him he came home in a hurry on 9/9, packed an overnight bag with a few uniforms, told his wife to stay away from crowds and keep the kids at home, gave her a kiss and left. That's a 100% true story."

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 9/11/2012 @ 1:29 pm PT...





Huffington Post has traditionally banned 9/11 stories such as the one posted by Jesse Ventura then quickly taken down. That seems to have changed with today's post by ex Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) who posted Re-Open the 9/11 Investigation Now.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... TimFromLA said on 9/11/2012 @ 4:03 pm PT...





It was an Inside Job

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Victoria said on 9/11/2012 @ 4:21 pm PT...





I remember Brad, that you interviewed Sibel Edmunds, an interview I was able to find on Youtube. She too tried to warn higher ups in the FBI and tried to warn of the attecks. Instead she got a gag order! Susan Lindauer also is an American shero for her efforts to blow the whistle on the coming attack. She spent five yearsin prison and was threatened with being drugged to shut her up. Both of these ladies deserve our respect and should be given the medal of freedom that was instead given to George Tenet.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Ralph Dratman said on 9/11/2012 @ 6:52 pm PT...





This is not really new information, but it may be worth discussing. You never know, however, what a new public uproar might do as the election approaches in a few short weeks. I think most Democrats would view this as a chancy topic at the moment. 9/11 taps into people's deepest fears. I suggest that after the election would be a better time to work on getting the truth out. Incidentally, I admire Sibel Edmonds very much, but last I heard she was still a Republican. Of course that might have changed. It seems obvious to me personally that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen, but I suspect they had no concept of how serious the attack would be. Cheney's Project For a New American Century (PNAC) had publicly wished for a "new Pearl Harbor" long before 9/11. But Cheney probably thought Al Qaeda would bomb a shopping center or at most a stadium. Then they could attack Iraq. That is what they really wanted to do, I believe. No words can convey my contempt for those people, including Judy Miller. If any of those morons had actually stopped to think about the World Trade Center buildings, they would have made some attempt to stop it. They were traitors, of course, but just miserable cowardly little traitors, not huge traitors like it would have taken to knowingly sacrifice the WTC. The above is just my own opinion, after a lot of thinking and reading about this in the years following 2001. The story seems clear to me now, but of course I could be dead wrong about any of it. Finally, I do not believe the WTC was brought down by demolition. That is ridiculous.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 9/11/2012 @ 9:24 pm PT...





I can't believe no one has posted this over here, yet: http://youtu.be/1l-8PFk8j5I "...Colorado Public Television (cpt12.org) and PBS have courageously honored their mission statements as being at the forefront of our nations's public service media network. CPT12 recently utilized this documentary film from Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth as a featured item during their annual fundraising campaign. The PBS national website then posted the re-broadcast and that became one of their "Most Watched" and "Most Shared" programs on PBS for several days! Please support the organization which made this program possible by purchasing the DVD or making a tax-deductible donation at www.AE911TRUTH.org. " I'm watching it now, and it's outstanding. Everyone should call up their local PBS stations and insist they air this important SCIENTIFIC documentary. Science. Not hearsay.

Science. Not conjecture, not rumor, myth ...

Science, not LIES. Please watch / share...and call PBS.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Worried About November said on 9/11/2012 @ 9:39 pm PT...





True story: I had a good friend who we'll call Fred who worked as a Flight Attendant for United and wound up "stranded" in New York, having flown in the night before the attacks. He told me that he was very relieved when the "no fly" order was lifted a few days later and he was among the first flight attendants called back to work because he was scared and really wanted to get home. As he boarded his flight with the other F.A.s, they found that a 30-ish man of middle eastern descent dressed as a Flight Attendant was already on board. They found this strange as they usually all board together, but they became even more confused when he explained he was only "dead-heading," airline industry speak for off-duty personnel flying for free. Fred said the passengers boarded and the plane pulled out, only to pull back in to the gate again. That's when the #1 (Chief Flight Attendant) whispered to him that the FBI had discovered there were passengers aboard whose tickets had been purchased with the same credit card used to buy tickets for the 9/11 hijackers. FBI agents boarded the plane and instructed the flight crew to leave immediately which they did. Fred said that was the last he knew about what happened on that plane --- even though he'd asked around, no one had (or was willing to share) any further information. I knew Fred very well and he was NOT the kind of person to make up such a story, nor am I. When he told it to me, he was visibly shaken and upset. I have no reason to believe it's not true. There's a LOT we don't know about 9/11 ... and, unfortunately, probably never will.

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Richard Charnin said on 9/11/2012 @ 11:38 pm PT...





Come on Brad.

Nothing new here.

Just another distraction. 9/11 was an inside job.

No one was fooled. Bush ignored the "threat" becomes he knew it was just a bogus canard to be used as an excuse later to say that the failure was based on incompetence. You call this a stunner? Brad, do you believe it was an Inside Job?

If you don't, but rather still believe that 19 hijackers foiled the most powerful air defense in history, then what can I say... you are going the way of Arianna Huffington and Noam Chomsky.

Willfully ignorant. This is the NY Post dammit. Murdoch's rag. The Post headlined Bush Knew way back in 2004:

http://www.flickr.com/ph...pse/4229073353/lightbox/ If Bush didn't, know, its only because the neocons who pulled it off didn't want him to know. Do you believe that nineteen Muslims armed with box cutters who could not fly a Cessna, hijacked four airliners and outfoxed the entire U.S. defense establishment – while Bin Laden was on dialysis, near death and hiding in caves? 9/11 and the Official Conspiracy Theory

To believe the official conspiracy theory (OCT) requires a belief in miracles.

It requires cognitive dissonance of obvious explosive (WTC 1 and WTC2) and symmetric (WTC 7) destruction. Probability calculations are unnecessary. The probability is ZERO based on historical facts and Newtonian physics.

http://ae911truth.org/ 1. NIST claims that office fires caused 3 steel-framed buildings to collapse at near free-fall – a clear refutation of Newton’s Laws of Motion.

- Free fall can only occur by an instantaneous removal of all supporting columns (i.e. a controlled demolition).

- Lateral ejection of debris can only occur from explosions – not fires.

- Jet fuel fires burn at much lower temperatures than required to melt steel.

- No steel-framed office buildings have ever collapsed due to fires. 2. CNN reporter Barbara Olson was a passenger on AA Flight 11 (which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon). She called husband Solicitor General Ted Olson from her cell phone and told him hijackers were armed with knives and box cutters.

- It was later disclosed that cell phones could not work at 30,000 feet.

- Olson then said that she called from a seatback phone. But according to an American Airlines spokesman, there were no seatback phones on Boeing 757 airliners.

- At the 2006 Moussaoui trial, the FBI reported there was one attempted call that lasted zero seconds (“unconnected”)from Barbara Olson to Ted Olson. 3. The BBC reported that WTC 7 collapsed at 5pm, 20 minutes before happened.

- How did the reporter know that it would collapse? Was she psychic?

- All fires burned out long before 5pm.

- Silverstein, the owner, said “pull it”. and there is much more… If you believe the official story (OCT), then what is your estimate of the probability of the following facts? - William Rodriguez, a WTC janitor, would hear a loud explosion seven seconds before the plane hit, but his testimony would be ignored by the 9/11 commission.

- The NIST would fail to acknowledge free-fall until David Chandler proved it.

- The collapse of WTC 7 would occur due to structural failure of one beam.

- The 9/11 Commission would fail to mention WTC 7 or note it their Report

- For the first time in history, not one but three steel-framed buildings would collapse due to office fires. - Airline fuel burning at 1000F would melt steel.

- April Gallop would hear an explosion next to her office at the Pentagon but not see any aircraft debris.

- NIST would not consider explosives as a possible cause of the collapses.

- NIST would admit freefall and claim it was due to office furniture fires.

- There would be traces of thermite in the lungs of first responders. - Over 118 firefighters would imagine that they heard explosions.

- Furniture would be ejected laterally 600 feet from office fires.

- Firefighters would know that WTC 7 would collapse before it did.

- When Larry Silverstein said “pull-it” he did not mean demolish WTC 7.

- At 5pm, the BBC would report WTC7 fell, 20 minutes before it did. - The passport of an alleged hijacker would be found in the rubble of the WTC.

- There would be no manifest record that hijackers boarded the planes.

- Put options on airline stocks would rise dramatically a few days before 9/11.

- Osama Bin Laden would not be on the FBI most wanted list for 9/11.

- 9/11 Commission heads Kean and Hamilton would disavow their own report. - There were multiple air defense exercises conducted on 9/11.

- Officials who ignored standard response procedures would be promoted.

- Not one of the four flight recorders would be retrieved.

- There is no video, airline debris or human remains at the Pentagon.

- There is no video, debris or human remains at the Pennsylvania crash site. - The media would not investigate these facts.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... grizzlybeardancer said on 9/12/2012 @ 12:40 am PT...





nO IT WAS CIA/BUSH FAMILY FRIEND BIN LADEN WHO TOOK DOWN BUILDING #7 IN 6 SECONDS INTO IT'S OWN FOOTPRINT, 7 1/2 HOURS AFTER THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSED ALTHOUGH noT HIT BY A PLANE. IT HAS TO BE THE TRUTH BECAUSE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE CORPORATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA SAID SO. END OF STORY!

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 9/12/2012 @ 12:58 am PT...





Richard Charnin, that was an epic rant....

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/12/2012 @ 7:51 am PT...





Indeed, an epic rant! One minor flaw: the undeserved respect it confers on the 9/11 con artist, William Rodriguez. The four pillars of Willie's hero story--that he rescued 15 persons, that his key saved hundreds, that he only left the building after a 22-story collapse made further rescue efforts impossible, and that he was the Last Man Out of the building--are all lies. The office workers were not locked in! Willie stole the true story of Pablo Ortiz, who climbed to the 89th and 90th floors to break down doors that had been jammed by the plane impact just above them. Mr. Ortiz saved dozens of people, and they're willing to say so on TV. Mr. Rodriguez, who claims he saved hundreds, can not find credible witnesses to corroborate his claims. Rodriguez has been traveling around the world defrauding his admirers of money by passing of Mr. Ortiz's story as his own. It's got to stop.

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Richard Charnin said on 9/12/2012 @ 12:40 pm PT...





Brian,I wrote "William Rodriguez, a WTC janitor, would hear a loud explosion seven seconds before the plane hit, but his testimony would be ignored by the 9/11 commission". That is an absolute fact. You are adding additional information that is not the issue here. The issue is the 9/11 coverup. The facts are a) he did testify, b) he did hear an explosion before the plane hit (he was not the only one to make that claim, and c) the 9/11 commission never acknowledged his testimony. In fact, the 9/11 commission never mentioned Building 7 at the hearings or in the book. To say that the NY Times is providing "stunning" new information is a joke. It is just a continuation of the coverup. The Times has had eight years to report on David Ray Griffin's superb and thorough analysis and Richard Gage's ae911truth.org to get the real facts out on 9/11. But who expects anything different from the Grey Lady?. The Times has had 50 years to get the JFK facts out, but instead still claim Oswald did it. Of course the Times is not alone, the corporate media is in total agreement, despite all the SCIENCE and MATHEMATICS WHICH PROVE IT WAS A CONSPIRACY BEYOND ALL DOUBT. http://richardcharnin.wo...f-the-jfk-assassination/

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/12/2012 @ 2:12 pm PT...





Richard, it's a fact that Willie SAID he heard an explosion before the plane hit, but he could be wrong and he could be lying. Who else said they heard an explosion before the plane hit? Probably the reason the 9/11 Commission ignored Willie's testimony is because his story changed over the years. On the day of 9/11, he told CNN THREE TIMES that he heard "a rumble". He said nothing about explosions. A year later on CNN he spoke of fireballs in the elevator shafts and said nothing about explosions. But in 2004, suddenly he was talking about explosions. He is not a reliable witness, and he's done enormous damage to the credibility of the truth movement because anyone who has any familiarity with emergency exit doors--every fireman, cop, security guard, janitor, nightclub manager, locksmith, and architect in the world--can see in an instant that Willie's fable of the Key of Hope is not true.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Richard Charnin said on 9/12/2012 @ 5:39 pm PT...





Brian Good, You say: "Probably the reason the 9/11 Commission ignored Willie's testimony is because his story changed over the years." Oh, is that so? You can't be serious. The 911 commission ignored over 100 questions asked by the Jersey widows at the hearings and in the book. Why? The Commission ignored any mention of WTC 7 - at the hearings and in the book.

Why? The Commission ignored basic Newtonian physics (free-fall) at the hearings and in the book.

Why? The Commission did not ask why there was no search for explosives - at the hearings and in the book. Why? The Commission did not ask why the evidence was carted away to China before a forensic investigation was even started - at the hearings and in the book. Why? The Commission did not ask why Bush and Cheney testified together but not under oath and no one could view their testimony at the hearings and in the book.

Why? The Commission did not ask why Zelikow was running the whole sham of the hearings and single-handedly called the shots - in the hearings or in the book. Why? I could go on and on about the multitude of Commissions omissions. Considering the 9/11 Commissions track record, for you to say that they ignored Willie's "fable" is disengenuous and has no basis in fact.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/12/2012 @ 5:46 pm PT...





Ralph Dratman @ 18 said: This is not really new information Actually, it is. Unless you can cite quotes from still-classified Presidential Briefing Memos from the CIA other than the infamous August 6 PDB. Incidentally, I admire Sibel Edmonds very much, but last I heard she was still a Republican. Where did you hear that?

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/12/2012 @ 5:50 pm PT...





Richard Charnin @ 21 said: Come on Brad.

Nothing new here.

Just another distraction. Really? As I just requested of Ralph Dratman, please cite the URL where I can read the specific texts of Presidential Daily Briefs issued by the CIA to the Bush Administration, other than the August 6th PDB. You are, of course, welcome to put forward any theory you like, referencing what you believe (accurately in some cases and not as accurately in others) happened. But to claim the information in the Eichenwald article is "nothing new", is absolutely incorrect and only weakens the credibility for your other assertions.

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/12/2012 @ 5:56 pm PT...





Brad, according to an article by Oliver Schrom in "Die Zeit" newspaper October 2, 2002, the August 8 PDB was actually 11-1/2 pages long. From an analysis at 3:20 in a Youtube video (1) it appears that the page numbers in the 1-1/2-page PDB we've seen have been redacted.

http://www.youtube.com/w...ndex=10&feature=plcp

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/12/2012 @ 8:02 pm PT...





Mr. Charnin, I know full well that the 9/11 Commission got 300 questions from the Jersey widows and only gave them 27 answers. I know of their 571-page lie's 115 omissions and distortions documented by Dr. Griffin. But they may have had legitimate reasons for ignoring William Rodriguez--who has revealed himself to be a liar and a fraud. The Truth movement would be far better off if it had ignored Mr. Rodriguez's self-serving and impossible tales. But instead they settled for a big dose of feel-good self-delusion--and alienated the firefighters, police, independent journalists, and skeptical lawyers who should have been the movement's greatest allies.

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 9/12/2012 @ 9:36 pm PT...





We'll be back with more from Coast to Coast AM following these messages from our sponsors...

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/12/2012 @ 9:53 pm PT...





Ummm, "Die Zeit" is hardly "Coast to Coast", and Oliver Schrom ain't George Noory.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... Richard Charnin said on 9/12/2012 @ 11:03 pm PT...





Mr. Good:

If the 9/11 commission ignored Willie's assertions, then it must have been because they were factual - just like they ignored tons of other factual evidence cited above. You can be sure that if they could have refuted his claims of hearing explosions before the plane hit, they would have done so. Brad,

My referral to the NY Post headline Bush knew is factual. The "Bush Knew" LIHOP mantra has been out there for eight years. The NY Times article is nothing new. It was not a LIHOP. It was a MIHOP. To suggest that by saying this it weakens my other assertions is absolutely ridiculous. Those

"assertions", as you call them, are facts. Show me where and how and why it weakens a solitary fact.. I would assume that are familiar with the work of Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin and that you review the factual scientific evidence that 1700 architects and engineers attest to. If you can refute any of the points factually, I welcome your evidence. To believe at this point in time that Bin Laden did 9/11 indicates they one is unfamiliar with the overwhelming evidence. Did you watch the ae911 video that Jeannie Dean posted? Do you care to comment on it?

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/12/2012 @ 11:53 pm PT...





Mr. Charnin, you are indulging in the logical fallacy of Honor by Association when you suppose that if the 9/11 Commission ignored some true issues and they ignored Willie's claims, then Willie's claims must be true. Here's an example:

Roger has many Japanese friends.

Heinrich is Roger's friend.

Heinrich must be Japanese. Willie has a great power to make truthers abandon their logical faculties. Truthers want to believe him. He seems so sincere. And how could anybody lie about stuff like that? Sorry, Willie lies. Open your eyes.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 9/13/2012 @ 5:45 am PT...





My opinion of what really happened on 9/11 in New York City is unchanged--I have no idea. The government's story has many holes in it. So does Richard Charnin's. For instance, Richard's litany of assertions and questions posed in his comment #27, which he seems to present as further damning proof of conspiracy, could be paralleled with another, different set of assertions and questions, about election integrity--

1.Diebold illegally inserted thousands of patches into Georgia's electronic voting machines before Saxby Chambliss's stunning and unexpected victory over popular incumbent Max Cleland. The media never questioned the outcome. Why? 2. Even after Alvin Greene's most improbable South Carolina primary win was challenged in court the local Democrats refused to follow through on an investigation. Why? 3. John Kerry knows the 2004 election was stolen, yet remains silent on the subject. Why? Etc., etc.... Do these relatively unexplained, seemingly incomprehensible examples of non-sensical passivity and lack of desperately needed investigation absolutely indicate all those disparate participants were involved in a mass conspiracy concerning election fraud? I don't think so. Not to say election fraud conspiracy is impossible, not at all, just that I doubt it would involve so many players. If there's a broad conspiracy there, to me it looks more like a conspiracy of denial. And it's cultural. It seems to me not unlikely that the unexplained mysteries of 9/11 may be still be unexplained, at least in part, due to the same sort of cultural indifference. For various, perhaps differing reasons, the government, the media, and the population just aren't that interested in uncovering what actually happened that day. Doesn't necessarily equate to the conspiracy Richard insists on. Like I said, my opinion on the matter is unchanged. I have no idea what really went down that day. ANYTHING is possible. Richard could be close to the truth. But so could Ralph Dratman at comment #18. I'd really like to get believable, comprehensive explanations of everything that went down on 9/11. I'm not keen on either the government saying next to nothing on the subject OR Richard Charnin trying to force unsubstantiated assertions down our throats. (I'll check out Jeannie Dean's video link)

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/13/2012 @ 9:24 am PT...





Too many Truthers get bored with the same old truths, and because they spend most of their time in the echo chamber with like-minded conspiracy theorists they start to get overly confident of questionable material--like the impossible tales of the blatant con artist William Rodriguez, for instance. At its core the Truth movement is about two undeniable facts: the Jersey widows' 300 questions only got 27 answers, and the official report about the twin towers was only half a report--its objective was to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed, but they didn't even try to explain how. The government still has a lot of 'splaining to do, and unfortunately the gaudy theories of irrational "inside job" (and worse!) advocates make the whole issue repulsive to thoughtful people.

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 9/13/2012 @ 1:27 pm PT...





Just watched Jeannie Dean's link to the PBS documentary. Extremely compelling. The last fifteen minutes or so focus on the psychology of trying to deal with the 9/11 story. As a somewhat obsessive election integrity advocate since the 2000 election theft, I found many parallels between the difficulties described for people trying to come to grips with challenging, alternative 9/11 narratives and the difficulties I've witnessed of people confronting(avoiding)the realities of our faith-based elections. Seeing those similarities made me feel more compassionate for those driven to distraction(and perhaps sometimes hyperbole)by what seems a national attitude of heads in the sand regarding 9/11. Like our violated election integrity, the 9/11 narrative is essential to forming our worldviews and beliefs as to what comprises reality. Therefore, like election integrity issues, it would seem that discovering the truth of the matter regarding 9/11 is imperative. That's my personal note. The whole almost hour long broadcast is excellent. No Willy Rodriguez. No histrionics. A lot of credible people. And the documentary starts with a nice long segment on the collapse of Tower 7 which for me has always been the biggest unexplained aspect of the event.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 9/13/2012 @ 1:29 pm PT...





Meant to mention that Jeannie's link was at #19. Here it is again-- http://youtu.be/1l-8PFk8j5I

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/13/2012 @ 3:31 pm PT...





It's worth noting that the architects and engineers group has never, to my knowledge, taken Willie's claims seriously enough even to investigate them, let alone promote them. There was one paper written trying to correlate Willie's tale with seismic data, but I'm pretty sure that paper has been debunked and the driving force behind it, a fellow named Craig Furlong, has abandoned the truth movement.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Richard Charnin said on 9/13/2012 @ 3:33 pm PT...





David Lasagna, Glad to see you have been converted and are now a full-fledged 9/11 Truther. Apparently, you never looked at the site where the video was created: The 1700 architects and engineers under the leadership of Richard Gage. http://ae911truth.org/ It's time already. Whoever still calls 9/11 truthers conspiracy theorists are either delusional or willfully ignorant. People take your head out of the sand. Open your eyes. Face the damn truth AE911truth.org has debunked every bit of misinformation and lies from NIST and Popular Mechanics. The defenders of the official conspiracy theory believe they know more than Sir Isaac Newton. They expose themselves when they claim that the buildings few due to fires. It is a sad commentary of the state of 21 century intelligence (and fear) when this patently absurd theory is promulgated by NIST. It's ten years later: David Ray Griffith lays it all out. http://www.amazon.com/11...566568684/ref=pd_sim_b_3 I will not respond to any posts denigrating what I have just written. There is nothing more to say. The case has been made with a torrent of facts. It is foolproof. THE DEBATE IS OVER! The scientific evidence ended it.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Richard Charnin said on 9/13/2012 @ 3:44 pm PT...





Brian Good, you have just revealed your true self.

You have just revealed yourself as an Untruther with this tripe: "Too many Truthers get bored with the same old truths, and because they spend most of their time in the echo chamber with like-minded conspiracy theorists they start to get overly confident of questionable material--like the impossible tales of the blatant con artist William Rodriguez, for instance". Let everyone reading this thread take notice. You make this asinine statement, resorting to ad hominems and red-herrings. With no shame. You are fixated on Willie Rodriguez. Its all you have. But its nothing. Did you watch the video posted by Jeannie Dean? Let's see you refute THAT. How dare you cast aspersions on 9/11 Truthers, you 9/11 Untruther.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 9/13/2012 @ 4:23 pm PT...





Richard,

What I'm also trying to say is that an aggressive, antagonistic attitude, like the one you're displaying, is, I think, unlikely to help your cause. As I said, I can relate and sympathize with your frustration, but my unsolicited recommendation is to find a way to express your ideas with more love. Know that sounds sappy in this cynical and inappropriately ironic culture--http://vimeo.com/3829682--but I still believe love really is the way.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 9/13/2012 @ 4:27 pm PT...





Brian Good @40 Not sure why you're still talking about Willie Rodriguez. As I said, he is not mentioned in the documentary. But there ARE plenty of other people who DO appear to be credible witnesses. And all their claims are backed up by various experts in the film. Looks credible to me.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/13/2012 @ 4:34 pm PT...





Richard Charnin, your rhetoric gets so over the top that you're blind to its absurdity. How can you out of one side of your mouth proclaim that 9/11 was an "inside job" and out of the other deny that you are a conspiracy theorist? Are you trying to make yourself look like a nut? I have proven that the four central claims of Willie's hero story--the fifteen rescues, the hundreds saved, the 22-story collapse, and Last Man Out--are all lies. What makes that a red herring and an ad hominem? I've never watched the one-hour video you cite. I have watched the 90-minute version and the 135-minute version many, many, many times. What's your point?

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 9/13/2012 @ 5:39 pm PT...





Brian Good @45-- Not sure what you're talking about when you claim to have seen a 90 minute version and a 135 minute version of the video being discussed in this thread. Jeannie Dean's link is to a PBS documentary. Are you saying there are 90 minute and 135 minute versions of this PBS documentary? Continuing to beat the dead Rodriguez horse ain't doin' a lot for your credibility either. As I've said, he ain't in the thing.

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/13/2012 @ 5:56 pm PT...





The Rodriguez horse isn't dead until Richard recognizes that Willie is a con artist who lies about 9/11, and defrauds and makes fools of his supporters. As long as Richard ignores the proof that Willie is a fraud, Richard's claims to rationality are no better than those of the "sheeple" he mocks. It's not a PBS documentary. "Experts Speak Out" was produced by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org). A 135-minute version was released a year ago. A 90-minute version was released in June. I've watched both of them umpteen times. Now there's a 60-minute version. I haven't watched that one.

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 9/13/2012 @ 7:20 pm PT...





Okay, I stand corrected on where the documentary came from. And I haven't seen any other versions of it. This one I have seen is full of people who say the given(government) explanations of the buildings coming down on 9/11 don't make sense for this reason and this reason and this reason...Various people say it looks like controlled demolition and give their reasons. The official NIST report is debunked with reasons given. Nobody in the video is claiming conspiracy, I don't think. They're all explaining why the explanations provided so far don't make sense because the evidence that is known so far indicate possibilities/likelihoods not accounted for in the official version of events. Nothing wild, wacky, or conspiratorial in any of it, in my opinion. So for me your harping on Willie Rodriguez to the exclusion of all the evidence and reasoning in this 58 minute video linked to here, seems a little odd. But if you and Richard need to go at it for whatever reasons and insist on discrediting each other instead of finding common ground, I'll get out of your way.

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/13/2012 @ 8:06 pm PT...





The first half is just engineering and it's pretty objective, I agree. But in the second half they're claiming they found high-tech military incendiaries from Livermore Labs in the dust. That sounds pretty conspiratorial to me. And then the shrinks come in and say "Why do people have a hard time accepting that the government did 9/11?" That sounds pretty conspiratorial to me.

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... Richard Charnin said on 9/13/2012 @ 10:49 pm PT...





The Bottom Line: Firefighters talk about explosions in the lobby: http://www.hotwebclips.com/Home/Show/Q8DRVqSSyb8

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 9/13/2012 @ 11:44 pm PT...





"Conspiracy stuff is now shorthand for unspeakable truth"- Vidal Gore Remember how certain blogs wouldn't have anything to do with election integrity advocates. "Nutters" they were called. I recall being made fun of by chants of Diebold, Diebold, Diebold.

Certain people should identify with how we feel after ten plus years of being called "truthers" and much worse. I am with you Richard. It took me three months of reading with an open mind because it was very difficult to come to the realization that the "official" story is just that, a far fetched story.

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 9/14/2012 @ 7:09 am PT...





re: Brian Good @49- I just looked carefully at the video again from the 20th minute on. Coupla things. 1. You are not reporting accurately. Nobody claims "they found high-tech military incendiaries from Livermore Labs in the dust." Various scientists say that particles were found that to them indicate the presence of thermite, or thermate, or nano-thermite. The only reference of any kind to the Livermore Labs is a graphic ever so briefly explaining what nano-thermite is. This graphic is on for three seconds. I timed it. Nobody says anything came from Livermore. The last scientist in that section of the video says(regarding the possibility of nano-thermite),"This is material of military use that really shouldn't be there." If that's what the stuff really is(and again I ain't sayin' I know for sure nano-thermite was there but that this does raise more questions)I'd have to agree with him. Someone else says in that section says that thermite is used for building demolitions. I take this to mean that it would not be that hard for someone other than a military person to get access to that kind of incendiary. So your characterization--"they're claiming they found high-tech military incendiaries from Livermore Labs in the dust"-- is inaccurate and misleading. To me you're acting like the conspiracy theorists you decry. Finding shit that isn't there cuz you're predisposed to and not acting terribly rationally. 2. Nobody says,"Why do people have a hard time accepting that the government did 9/11?" Again, you're being inaccurate and misleading. As that section starts it is clearly implied that what the mental health professionals are about to say is qualitatively different from the science the film has been about up to that point. Then various people talk about how psychologically difficult it can be for people to look at something different than the government's version. Granted the implication is that they've been lied to by the government. But you're not actually suggesting that the notion that the government lied to us is evidence of some wacky, off-the-chart cuckoo conspiracy theory, are you? You yourself posted a link about Condi and Bush lying. 3. I just went through the comments in this thread again to see what the hell all the fuss was about. Far as I can tell both you and Richard like to do some weird dance of hostility and disparagement. The music you two like to dance to is mostly William Rodriguez. From my point of view neither one of you is making a hell of a lot of sense concerning him. Richard seems to be unreasonably defending him. You seem to be unreasonably equating the possibility of one liar as proof that everything else being said by your antagonist, Richard, is unreasonable. Too broad a stroke there for my taste. 4. To me the thrust of the video is represented in two successive comments by Dr. Robert Bowman, who according to the video is--former Director, Advanced Space Programs, Dept of Defense under Ford, Carter Administrations.

"We know we've been lied to about 9/11. Uh, we don't know for sure who did it. We don't know exactly how they did everything, and that's why we need a new investigation to find out." "We know that there was a massive cover-up, that there was evidence hidden and destroyed. The American people need the truth of 9/11." Which part of that would you disagree with? Seems eminently reasonable to me. So again. I recommend Jeannie Dean's video.

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/14/2012 @ 10:58 am PT...





Anytime someone writes about any new detail pertaining to 9/11 it sets off a debate between those who insist 9/11 was an inside job and those who insist that anyone who questions the official account is a whack conspiracy theorist. This article merely pointed to some PDBs, never previously disclosed, that enhance the fact that the Bush regime was forewarned. I, for one, would have no problem with a new investigation of the event. I don't believe that a complete and accurate account has ever been provided. But criticizing Brad for reporting on that which had never previously been reported is a bit over the top.

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/14/2012 @ 11:42 am PT...





David, I am at a disadvantage because I have not seen the shortened version. In the 90-minute version the claim is made that the red/gray chips are a high-tech military material, and written quotes from Livermore scientists are shown about their studies into nano-tech incendiaries and explosives. The implication that the stuff came from a US government lab is clear. Thermite, being iron oxide and aluminum, is easy to manufacture. Independence Day sparklers are thermite. Maybe the 60-minute version tones down the statements of the shrinks. In the 90-minute version they clearly state that people have a hard time facing up to the notion that the government might have done 9/11, and it talks about the dissonance created when our protector becomes our enemy. Willie Rodriguez is a symbol of the disagreement between Mr. Charnin and me. Mr. Charnin seizes on Willie as evidence to support his conclusion (or is it an assumption?) that 9/11 was an inside job. I seize on Willie as an example of the sloppy scholarship engaged in by many conspiracy theorists like Mr. Charnin. I have investigated Willie's story thoroughly and I can prove that it's mostly lies. I'm not saying that what Mr. Charnin says is unreasonable. That was the point of my first post--that his rant was a fine one, except for the teeny little turd in the punchbowl, Willie Rodriguez. But Mr. Chernin's demonstrably unreasonable nature makes repulsive his mostly true thesis. I have always regarded Dr. Bowman as one of the most wise, most credible, and most reasonable of the 9/11 Truth advocates. I agree with everything he said there. My favorite quote from him is "The truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the truth about 9/11--and we should." There is absolutely no need for conspiracy theories or conspiracy theorists. The fact of the widows' 273 unanswered questions and the fact that NIST only issued half a report are sufficient. It's too bad that clowns like Chernin chanting "Inside Job! Inside job!" go around pissing people off and demonstratng their lousy logic skills and making us look like a pack of loons.

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/14/2012 @ 11:46 am PT...





Ernest, I believe the criticism leveled at Brad came from Mr. Chernin, who was insisting that the story about the PDBs was trivial and that Brad ought to be reporting instead that 9/11 was an Inside Job. Of course, since Mr. Chernin failed to detect that his hero William Rodriguez is a blatant con artist, he demonstrates what his opinion is worth right there.

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 9/14/2012 @ 7:21 pm PT...





Brain#55 Mr Chernin (aka TruthisAll)is a friend of this blog for as long as I have been here, seven years or so. You pick one item out of all he listed and wonder what his opinion is worth because of that one item...geezz

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 9/14/2012 @ 8:51 pm PT...





Brian @54, Thank you for the clarification. I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I apologize if I was excessively vigilant or misunderstanding. Thanks again for making the effort. David

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/15/2012 @ 7:54 am PT...





It is a beautiful image, though there is the essential question: If Willie's key was saving hundreds of lives by opening doors and letting people out, then why did the firefighters allow Willie to take his lifesaving key with him and go to take one disabled man to the street--abandoning hundreds of people trapped behind locked doors on floors 40 to 88? Why is the key alive today to tell the tale? Why wasn't it buried in the rubble with all the other dead heroes?

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/15/2012 @ 8:11 am PT...





GWN #57, I don't care if Mr. Charnin is a friend to Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky. I picked one issue out because the fraudulence of Willie's story is an open secret within the Truth movement. Apparently Mr. Charnin never got the memo. It was hardly the only issue. I found Charnin's know-it-all arrogance repulsive and impolitic when he poo-poos the value of further study of the pre-9/11 intelligence because in his opinion it did not go far enough. People need to be woken to 9/11 issues gradually, and awareness of intel "incompetence" is the first step. (Look into it very far and you'll soon find that no one could be that incompetent.) Many of the items in Charnin's "fine rant" I chose to let go by even though they were stooooopid. No plane part and no bodies at the Pentagon? What planet does Charnin live on? The notion that Larry Silverstein confessed on national TV that he blew up his own building is absurd, and repeating it only serves Mr. Silverstein's neocon friends by making Charnin look stupid. The claim that none of the flight recorders were recovered is simply ignorant. Then we have the demonstration of rampant irrationality when he claims that 9/11 was an inside job and then claims he's not a conspiracy theorist. Does Charnin know what simple words mean? Finally there is the aggressive response to someone who merely pointed out a correction. So I am not a truther because I point out the shortcomings of Willie Rodriguez's obvious con job, and Charnin is a truther because he uncritically accepts Willie's impossible and self-serving lies? With advocates like Mr. Charnin, it's no surprise that the truth movement is so slow to achieve traction.

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... Mark701 said on 9/17/2012 @ 10:43 am PT...





I think most of us understand that the Bush Administration had some kind of warning(s). The thing that really matters is how much detail the warnings entailed. If the Bushys knew the date, time and place then they are guilty of treason and murder. However, my take is that, as a whole, the Bush Administration didn't have the details. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that rogue elements in the US government and a foreign government (read Israel) weren't involved. IMO what happened that day can't be explained in any other way. An airliner crashes into the Pentagon and leaves virtually no debris, no bodies, nothing. Three buildings collapse perfectly into their own footprints. One of them, Building 7 collapsed at 5:30pm on the same day and wasn't even hit by a jet. The literal impossibly or that happening points like an arrow to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. But like the JFK assassination the truth will never come out, or if it does, will never be widely accepted. Like children, Americans simply can't wrap their brains around the fact that individuals in the US government could act with such calculated, murderous intent against other US citizens. But they did. There is no other rational explanation other than to accept the evidence that's been staring us in the face ever since that terrible day.

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/17/2012 @ 3:30 pm PT...





Mark701 said @ 60: I think most of us understand that the Bush Administration had some kind of warning(s). The thing that really matters is how much detail the warnings entailed. If the Bushys knew the date, time and place then they are guilty of treason and murder. However, my take is that, as a whole, the Bush Administration didn't have the details. Nice of you to give them a free pass. While the "date, time and place" were not known, when the system was similarly "blinking red" during the Clinton Administration, they went to war posts. They told the intelligence agencies to burn through their entire yearly budget, and several terrorist attacks were said to have been stopped. When similar, arguably worse, warnings were "blinking red" during the Bush Administration, they did nothing. Even worse, they accused the intelligence agencies of falling for a hoax by Bin Laden. But, as I said, nice of you to give them a pass, despite all the evidence they had, in exchange for blaming Israel, despite the dearth of evidence that you actually have

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/18/2012 @ 12:03 pm PT...





Giving Bush a pass, blaming Israel with no evidence at all, and making erroneous claims that no bodies were found at the Pentagon and that the WTC buildings fell in their footprints. Far too many people make silly claims about 9/11, and they well deserve the label "twoofer". The facts of 9/11 are damning enough. Speading misinformation is irresponsible. The 9/11 Widows had 300 questions and got 27 answers. The Report about the WTC is just half a report, because though it claims to explain why the buildings collapsed, the investigators admit they can't explain how it collapsed. Thanks for keeping a cool head, Brad!

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... Albury Smith said on 9/19/2012 @ 4:42 pm PT...





It was NIST's job to explain what caused the towers to collapse, and modeling them all the way down is not only impossible, but of very dubious value to SEs and others concerned with building safety. Perhaps you could explain how the US response to the attacks would have been different if the 3 WTC hi-rises hadn't collapsed on 9/11? A warning letter to bin Laden and al Qaeda, who'd already been conclusively linked to 2 coordinated suicide attacks on US embassies in 1998, and the suicide attack on the USS Cole in 2000? President Bush's inept kid ignored numerous warnings, but none specific enough to have prevented the unprecedented tactic of murder/suicide by hijacked airliner.

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... Brian Good said on 9/25/2012 @ 2:19 pm PT...

