the problem is that AP is OWNED. how are you going to get them to respond to a problem, when THEY ARE the problem? what needs to happen is to extract the controllers who kill any truth that might pass over the AP wires, like the fat blood-engorged wriggling ticks that they are, and jail them all for treason. that is the only way that AP will ever respond. unfortunately there seems to be a complete lock on the senior editorial staff of AP. if you doubt what i am talking about, look no farther than Conrad Black and Richard Perle, who EVEN TODAY continue to purvey their warmongering hate screed, while shitting on all truth or justice they detect. if you can't even stop Perle from emitting his holocaust of poison lies, how to stop the starched shirt traitors of Associated Press? A letter writing campaign is not going to cut it. Covert means of obtaining the dirt on them is needed.

good luck!

http://www.physics911.ca
miami.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/5106.php

Imagine the state of mind of a professional journalist, confronted by the very strong evidence that 911 was an inside job, who nevertheless chooses to articulate denial. Yecch.

My favorite item of evidence is this: The fact that most of the concrete in the WTC towers was transformed to dust, rather than broken chunks, showing that shock waves from high explosives, not structural failure, brought the buildings down.

There are so many items, any one of which suffices to damn such fake journalists, and their masters.

I'm not saying that you guys are stupid. I am just trying to bring up some points to see what you think of them. Please don't start a flame war with me, OK? If I come across as scathing, it's just the way I am. No offense intended. Read this, maybe you will see this thing from a simpler perspective.

1- How many professional demolitions teams are there in the entire world that can pull off a job the size of a single WTC tower, let alone two? 4, maybe 5, IF any of them would actually attempt it. It would take months to plan the job, more months and maybe years to actually bore the necassary holes, cut the structure to control the fall, and plant the explosives. It would take miles upon miles of det cord, that would undoubtedly be noticed by someone at some point and reported to authorities. A ten story condo was recently brought down in my hometown, and it took the demo team about 2 months to plan the job, bore the holes, cut the structure to weaken it, then plant the explosives and finally pull the trigger. How long would it take to execute a job as big as the WTC?

2- When a building is taken down by pros, it is blown from the bottom up, effectively cutting its legs out from under it so it collapses onto itself. Why, if this was a professional job, did the buildings collapse from the point of impact downward?

3- From the patent office itself: "Thermate-TH3, a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives, was found to be superior to thermites and was adapted for use in incendiary hand grenades. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulfur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and reduces the ignition temperature." So, Thermate is basically Thermite on steroids; however, is NOT an ideal compound for use in large scale demolitions. First of all, it does not explode. It burns, slowly and at a very high temperature (on the order of 4000 degrees F). It burns entirely too slow to cut steel in a controlled manner such as that needed for demolitions. It is also completely uncontrollable. The stuff can vaporize carbide steel, making containment impossible once it ignites. A thermite reaction (a type of aluminothermic reaction) is one in which aluminium metal is oxidized by an oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide (RUST). The name thermite is also used to refer to a mixture of two such chemicals. The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental metal and tremendous heat. The reactants are commonly powdered and mixed with a binder to keep the material solid and prevent separation.

Where am I going with this? Magnesium, such as that found in road flares, is commonly used to ignite the mixture. Many aircraft components, such as transmission housings, gearboxes, even some bulkheads, are made of magnesium due to its light weight. Magnesium burns at roughly 2000 degrees F, not quite as hot as thermite, but is similar in that once it starts burning you cannot put it out. T-6 aluminum, which comprises the greater part of aircraft frame structures, melts at about 1300 degrees F. Hmmm.... could all that molten metal seen dripping from the side of the buildings be aluminum that was melted by burning magnesium housings? Could the "thermate residue" on the steel have been the result of violently burning aluminum and magnesium touching off a reaction with the structural steel components of the building itself, even a slight one? Could oxygen from the pressurized cabin air system have helped fan the flames? Could ruptured natural gas lines have made a contribution? Again, just asking.

Now, wrap your mind around this: The melting point of structural steel is on the order of 3000 degrees F. However, it becomes MALLEABLE, that is workable through mechanical pressure such as that exerted by untold tons of concrete and steel above the impact point), at below 1000 degrees F. Your car engine is a perfect example. There is high carbon steel in your engine that doesn't melt until about 2800 deg F. It will begin to warp and fail at around 290 deg F, however, due to the considerable pressure exerted upon it by expansion. Watch your temperature gauge. ;)

4- Hijack suspects alive and well? Really? Hmmm... I wonder how many John Smiths there are in the world. Or how many James Browns there are. How about Michael White? Do you suppose that the people bitching about defamation just happen to have the same name? Sounds so simple as to be stupid, but then again, most things in life are.

5- As for flying the planes, it's not that bloody hard to do. I have flown a helicopter from Whitham Field in Stuart, FL all the way to Indiantown FL, about 30 miles west, at less than 200 feet AGL and at speeds exceeding 80 KIAS, with only rudimentary training and a little PC based simulator time. Fixed wing aircraft are a damn sight easier to fly than helos, and those big planes generally fly themselves. A 747 can take off, fly its route, and land with absolutely no direct flight control input from the pilot. All he has to due is dial in a course, altitude, and speed and the plane takes him there. Auto takeoff and landing features are similar; the plane acquires the ILS glidepath and follows it up or down as the situation requires. Again, the pilot merely pushes a button.

Your thoughts, please?

Pretty well laid out, and quite accurate.
To add a couple things:
1. Explosives - if you still think that the building could have been rigged quickly and quietly, you've obviously never dealt with government contractors. Also, since most people are stuck on the thermite thing (which by the way, is not a cutting charge - it melts things, and relatively slowly compared to cutting charges), consider that thermite will ignite immediately when exposed to flame. C-4 and similar plastics will burn when exposed to a flame, non-violently, though simultaneous heat and impact will detonate it. Any triggering devices would be either electrical wire (anyone care to give me the melting point of copper?) or det cord, which is basically a long string of C-4. My point being that any demolitions rigging done prior to 9/11 would have been destroyed upon or minutes after the initial impacts. Even a cursory viewing of building collapase will show you that failure began at the midpoint of the burning floors - where no explosive or trigger could have, by then, existed.
2. The mysterious passport that conspiricists love to proclaim is false as it couldn't have survived. I suggest you visit the Smithsonian or at least it's website, and check out mail that was taken from the incinerated wreckage of the Hindenburg, and later delivered.
3. Why was an airplane allowed to hit the Pentagon? Easy, there is nothing there to stop it. The Pentagon is guarded by Marines with M16s, razor wire fence and concrete truck barriers. I would admit the possibility of Stingers on the roof. None of which would affect a 747. Even if, and this is higly unlikely, there was a Patriot battery nearby, a small Surface to Air missile would only ensure that an airliner was damaged upon impacting the building. Think simple physics and momentum.

1- Government does some things well. This might have been another government than ours. Your belief that the fires were at a very high temperature is at odds with NIST studies; see my note elsewhere in this page about Dust, Malleability, & High Temperature. My own viewing of the collspses has not led me to see initiation at the "midpoint of the burning floors", but I'll look again.

3- The Pentagon and the White House are, or are supposed to be, protected also by Andrews Air Force Base. Absence of fighter planes from the action has always been the elephant in the living room of 9/11.

3- The presence of Thermate is obviously significant. Where in an airframe / girder thermite reaction would you find barium nitrate in the proportion present in Thermate?

0) What about the missing concrete chunks? What about the WTC owner's taped utterance that he was about to "pull" WTC 7?

1) I wonder where you obtain your estimate of the paucity of demolitions expertise? There are thousands of demolitions experts trained by the world's major militaries. Time required to plant the explosives could be minimized by investing time in planning the operation. The WTC was closed for a few days not long before 9/11. During the closure, there was surely time for a company of military demolitions engineers to plant the explosives, run short wires within the electrical or ventilation conduits to numerous radio-controlled detonators and plant thermite-based charges to program the necessary structural cuts, likewise radio-controlled. The probability is low that the detonation leads would be distinguished from the building wiring during the short period that elapsed between the closure and 9/11.

2) Although normal demolitions may run from the bottom up, to take advantage of the building's rigid inertia, nothing prevents running it the other way in today's world of readily-available computing power. And top-down has the advantage of making the fact that it was a demolition less obvious.

3) Good points...but what about all the other evidence?

5) The maneuver executed by whatever hit the Pentagon, a descending 180=degree turn at 500+ mph ending in a ground-skimming bullseye, is generally acknowledged to have required an expert pilot. Are you claiming that you could've accomplished this?

Regarding (1): One radio per charge would obviate the wires entirely.

0- Pulverized to dust by the impact, or possibly pulverized by intense heat. Concrete will quickly break down when exposed to high temperatures.

1- As I said before, a building the size of a WTC tower would take literally tons of explosives to bring down. And no self respecting demo man in the world would use a radio detonator, ESPECIALLY in the middle of a major metropolitan area next to two major airports and the highest concentration of HF, VHF, UHF, HAM, AM, WiFi, BlueTooth, CB, and God alone knows what other kinds of radio waves in the immediate vicinity. The danger of an accidental detonation due to radio interference is far too great. Radio waves in the right power and frequncy WILL set off blasting caps that aren't even wired. Why do you think you see a "TURN CBs and CELL PHONES OFF" sign near any and all blasting sites? Again, we are back to det cord, as it is the ONLY stable and safe way to set off a charge without worrying about accidental detonation.

As for your insinuation that the military was somehow involved, I suggest you study the demolitions and combat engineers training a little closer. They are not trained in large scal programmed demolitions. The military approach to demolishion is like the sledge hammer vs. the fly.

2- Are you a demo expert? Cite a credible source and I might entertain that idea.

3- What evidence are you referring to?

4- At this point in time, no way. Give me a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator and about a month to practice the approach, and I probably could. Planes are not difficult to fly once they are off the ground. Take-off and landing are the 2 most dangerous phases of a flight. Is it so hard to accept that a man trained for months in a simulator to make that approach and actually did it when crunch time came?

Regarding 4- rookie airliner pilots perform similar maneuvers every flight: LANDING. The end of a runway is smaller than the Pentagon, and they have to hit that target perfectly aligned while skimming the ground. Granted, many of them use computers. But they are required to perform manual landings to maintain their qualifications. Besides, people were landing planes as big as 747s without computers for a very long time before anyone thought to invent an autopilot feature.

Regarding 0- I'd like to hear the tape, than I can comment.

1- Radio Detonator:
The idea that radio detonators cannot be prevented from activating accidentally in response to ambient RF and microwaves seems plainly mistaken to me. One simply needs adequate shielding and insulation of the electronics (apart from the antenna) and a large activation sequence space, so that fields intense enough to cause sparking, or a sequence's accidental occurrence, are each sufficiently improbable. Your doubt that such devices can be produced may be rooted in bad experiences with primitive designs.

Can you supply any reports of blasting caps detonating without being wired? Maybe at the focus of a high-powered radar installation? It seems to me that such an occurrence would have to point to a defect in the blasting cap, or in its design.

0- The Murrah Bldg bombing provides exeamples of both shocked and broken concrete. The latter did not crumble into dust. As for high temperature:

3- Regarding malleability:
The inward buckling of which you speak sounds interesting, I hadn't noticed it, but will look again.

Here's an excerpt addressing how hot the fire was, from a great article by David Griffin:
“As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, 'only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],' and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).” --David Ray Griffin, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”
www.mujca.com/textnewyork.htm

"I wonder where you obtain your estimate of the paucity of demolitions expertise? There are thousands of demolitions experts trained by the world's major militaries."
Yes, trained to detonate minefields and UXOs, destroy enemy bunkers and bridges, cut trees to become obstacles; all fast and messy. No Army engineer is trained in massive scale precise takedowns of skyscrapers, or even houses. I have a copy of the offical Army demo book and it doesn't mention building anywhere.
Do a search for demo companies - you'll find there are less than 10 people in the world experienced and qualified to do such large scale demos (and they all know each other), and their companies are booked solid years in advance.

Regarding item (3) in the post that points out the distinction between fluidity and malleability: Dispite this, fire has never yet caused a steel-frame building to collapse. If fire brought down the WTC buildings (don't forget Building 7, which was not struck by a plane), this would be the first and only time it's ever happened.

There ha never been a fire of this magnitude in a building of this size, ever. This is also the first time that a highrise building was hit by a passenger arliner at over 500 miles per hour. Fires in other steel structures did not lead to collapse due to fireproofing efforts, i.e. fire and heat resistant coatings over the steel beams. The stuff is similar to Gun-ite, the stuff they line swimming pools with. It sprays on but dries to a brittle state. The WTC towers did have the treatments, but the planes spmashed that all to bits when they struck. Now you have major structural damage to the main load bearing wall (the outer wall or "sleeve" as it were) along with a fire which probably exceeded 900 degrees F under exposed steel that was supporting the immense weight of the upper half of the building. Photos and video footage clearly show an inward buckling of the outer walls of the structure minutes before the collapse as the weight of the upper floors literally tore the building apart from within.

WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane, but I would dare to guess that a large portion of the burning fuel and debris landed on it, soon followed by a great big chunk of the WTC towers themselves when they fell.

Regarding item (3) in the post that points out the distinction between fluidity and malleability: Dispite this, fire has never yet caused a steel-frame building to collapse. If fire brought down the WTC buildings (don't forget Building 7, which was not struck by a plane), this would be the first and only time it's ever happened.

It look spretty clear that building 7 was brought down by explosives. That doesn't necessarily point to a grander conspiracy, beyond maybe insurance fraud.

Insurance fraud by the WTC owner might explain demolition of the WTC, but doesn't bear upon the evidence of Executive Branch involvement in the attacks.

Isn't it strange that with all the "overwhelming" evidence, you guys can't find one friggin' attorney to take your cases. Where's Ron Kuby or the like? I would think that the shareholders of these insurance companies would be pretty upset if they just paid out billions upon billions of bucks for something that actually a criminal act.

For that matter, you can't find a single relative of a victim of 9/11 ,a firefighter, a cop, an airline worker, anyone in the towers, who is willing to make the claims you make.

As for # 7 WTC, what you fail to mention is that not only was it burning from the diesel fuel tanks in the building, but a huge chunk of the building was missing from the collapse of the North tower. (Go on to 'youtube).

Not one of your claims has been accepted by any peer-reviewed journal. You make creationists look sane.

But hey, this is Indy, so tell me more about the 4,000 Jews who stayed away from the WTC that day.

Indy continue to be:

1/3 Pravda
1/3 Weekly World News
1/3 Mein Kampf

Among attorneys willing to take 9/11 cases, one may number the former deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, handling separate RICO (Racketeering and Corrupt Organization) lawsuits against Executive Branch principals for 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani and 9/11 witness William Rodriguez. Rodriguez' testimony, supported by seismic records, that large explosions at the base of the North Tower preceded the doomed plane's impact by several seconds was suppressed by the 9/11 Commission. 9/11 whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has employed not one attorney in her lawsuit against the FBI, but two (at least): Mark Zaid and Ann Beeson. The claims made by 9/11 Truth activists are, in fact, based upon claims made by witnesses. For example, Rodriguez' testimony is supported by Mike Pecoraro, Phillip Morelli, Jose Sanchez and several other known eyewitnesses.

Regarding WTC 7, the damage you mention is not readily apparent in this image:
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture4.jpg
taken after the collapse of the twin towers, included in the paper, Steven E. Jones, (2006). "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?", The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Regarding the significance of the diesel fuel, Steven Jones points out in this paper that steel from WTC 7 had vaporized, something that requires temperatures greater than 5,180 degrees Fahrenheit. Diesel could not have done this. Thermite or high explosives could have.

Regarding peer-reviewed journals, actually, there is one, the Journal of 911 Studies
www.journalof911studies.com/
Check it out.

For those who can't find the video on YouTube showing the damage to 7 WTC.

www.youtube.com/v/6uFNBpjZCI4

Why do you expect your made-up stories to appear in real newspapers and on real television news shows?

I think you're calling news reports "made-up stories" because they make you uncomfortable, because they imply a need to challenge those in power. Denial is easier. By the way, you should take advantage of Al-Jazeera if you can.

Um no. I'm calling them "made-up" because they are literally made-up out of whole cloth by cynical people who make money selling conspiracy theories to gullible people like you.

So, Mr. Koppel, you maintain that the RICO lawsuits pursued by a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania against G.W. Bush & al. on behalf of Ellen Mariani and William Rodriguez don't really exist? Is Rodriguez' testimony, supported by several other witnesses, that a large explosion at the base of the North Tower preceded the plane's impact, really just a conspiracy to make money selling DVD's? Rodriguez lost many of his friends in the attacks. Do you believe the plane that executed an expert high-speed maneuver on its way into a wall of the Pentagon was piloted by someone who could barely manage a Cessna?

The damage isn't readily apparent in that image ,because the entire lower part of the building is obstructed in that view. Check out the YouTube link which shows the unobstucted view.

Sibel Edmonds makes no claim that the gov.'t had any foreknowledge of 9/11.

As for that peered-review journal - you're joking, right? A bunch of people with similar views getting together isn't a peer-reviewed journal. "Creationists" have a journal too - does that make it credible? Come on.

The seismic records you cite (and are frequently cited) have been stated by the person who took them as being taken out of context. (If you can't find the link, I'll provide it - I'm at work, so busy now).

Jones himself isn't believed by anyone who does this for a living, which he certainly doesn't.

I have no idea who the 'witnesses' you cite are - someone who saw explosives? Why haven't they deposed Larry Silverstein?

You know the answer. Why haven't the shareholders of the insurance companies done so?

You know the answer.

I appreciate you responded, but do you seriously believe this stuff?

Regarding the damage to WTC 7, here's another view that shows the base of the building and the clearly containable fires within.
www.niftimal.com/politics/911/wtc_demolitions_files/bd7.jpg
The damage seems an unlikely cause for structural collapse, and FEMA's 2002 report, cited in Steven Jones' paper, declined to draw a conclusion about the reason for the collapse.

Sibel Edmonds witnessed malfeasance or gross incompetence by her colleagues and superiors in the FBI in the handling of intelligence bearing upon 9/11. Such intelligence is the source of foreknowledge. Attempts by the Justice Department to silence her, and the refusal of the 9/11 Commission to publish her testimony, are grounds for grave concern regarding the Executive Branch's conduct before, during and after 9/11.

Far from being unbelieved, Steven Jones' thesis that the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition was the immediate response to the video footage by several professional demolitions experts, including Van Romero (Albuquerque Journal, 11 Sept 01), one of the most prominent in his field. Under pressure, he later changed his position. See Footnote 40 of David Griffin's great presentation:
www.mujca.com/textnewyork.htm

Regarding the seismic data, look for yourself:
www.niftimal.com/politics/911/wtc_demolitions_files/seis.gif
As InfoWar's Alex Jones points out, “The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic 'spikes' marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.”

The witnesses I named are just a few of many whose statements support Mr Rodriguez' testimony. Others can be found with a web search. Synopses of several accounts can be found in David Griffin's great presentation, footnotes 37, 38, and 39, and in Section 2: “Testimonies about Explosions and Related Phenomena in the 9/11 Oral Histories”, under “Explosions”.
www.mujca.com/textnewyork.htm

Regarding insurance shareholders' failure to depose Mr. Silverstein, I don't know that they haven't; do you? If not, I agree that they probably should.
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WTC312A.html

"Regarding the damage to WTC 7, here's another view that shows the base of the building and the clearly containable fires within."

Are you a firefighter Were you there? Did you see the fires up close and personal, or did you make a half-assed assumption based on a single photgraph that gives no sense of scale to the damage? Did you happen to notice that the entire building was leaning to the south before it fell? Do you think that could be because one of the towers fell on it?

You people keep rehashing the same tired bullshit that was covered in loose change. Why don't you read the latest findings and come out of 2001?

Whup, I erred in offering comments regarding the collapse in connection with the Rodriguez testimony. The seismic data supporting Rodriguez' case relates to the initial impacts, time discrepancies between main seismic spikes recorded by LDEO and impact times based (?) on analysis of video records.
Here's a Portland IMC thread on this issue:
portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/08/343674.shtml

"Such intelligence is the source of foreknowledge"? Huh? Is that supposed to translate into Edmonds' saying there was foreknowledge? Of course it doesn't, because it doesn't. She's NEVER said it. She's NEVER said anything like that.

You can't produce a single person who is responsible for the seismographic readings who claims anything about explosives or any such nonsense.

The picture you have of WTC 7 is from the north, along Greenwich street. It doesn't show the south face of the southwest side of the building, which was essentially 'taken out' by the collapse of the North Tower. The building burned for hours, before finally collapsing around 5:30P. The ash fell on me where I live.

Lastly though, while of course the burden of proof would be on -you, I'll save you the effort for Silverstein, of course he hasn't been deposed, and in the trial just concluded with his insurers, isn't it amazing that not a single time did opposing counsel bring this up.

You can call Wachtell, Lipton Rosen & Katz though, those are his attorneys. Their phone # is 212.403.1000 (telephone)

51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019

Feel free to call them.

Likewise, you could contact the attorneys of the firms that just had to pay him about a billion dollars. I would think they'd be dying to hear from you.

Or, as those firms are mostly publicly traded, you could buy a share and have a shareholder motion to tell them about the great fraud perpetrated upon them - and that you guys have been able to uncover.

LOL

It is obvious that a conspiracy to impede the transmission of intelligence bearing on 9/11 is directly relevant to government complicity in the crime. Your feeble attempt to separate Sibel Edmonds' suit from the issue of government complicity fools no one.

The campaign of distortion and ridicule waged by the media, of which the recent AP/ABC reporting is an instance, is entirely sufficient to explain a general reluctance to be associated with it. Anyone who relies on federal grant money is going to take the current administration's demonstrated propensity for retaliation into account in considering his public statements. We must all pick our battles.

Come on, do you even read the things you yourself cite? From the Columbia Lamonot-Doherty Observatory, Arthu Lerner-Lam: ""There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

His e-mail is here:
lerner (at) ldeo.columbia.edu

The peer-reviewed stuff is here from the American Geophysical Union - I guess they must be in on the conspiracy too, along with NIST.

www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0128.html

You know - here's some friendly advice - even Noam Chomsky doesn't believe this sh*t, and that ought to tell you something.

It's sometimes possible to distinguish from seismic data between possible classes of events, say, between earthquakes and dynamite. Lerner-Lam might well contribute greatly to this discussion with an explication of the basis for excluding high explosives but not an airliner-skyscraper collision.

One argument in support of Lerner-Lam's declaration might be that the impacts would have to have registered comparably to the main spikes that appear at about the right time, and thus must account for them.

Is what you said really supposed to be logic and fact? It wouldn't pass muster in a 7th grade debate class. Maybe not even 5th grade.

I guess you failed to notice 2 things:

1- -you brought up Sibel Edmonds - and 2 - she doesn't support anything you say. You kind of gloss over that, don'tcha.

Again too - you fail to account for why no credible peer-revied journal supports your contentions, and you've 'forgotten' all about the chunk of 7 WTC taken out of it in the collapse of the South Tower.

Oh, I was thinking too of how the Port Authority, must have felt so stupid being in on this conspiracy, wheyn they happened to kill their own Executive Director, Neil Levin, in the attack.

"It is obvious that a conspiracy..."

Listen to yourself.

Lots of things are obvious to paranoids.

Actually, it should be fairly easy for anyone reading this discussion to observe a marked difference in tone and content between your posts and mine.

Are you contending that I've misstated the content of Ms. Edmonds' suit? Malfeasance in the handling of intel bearing on 9/11.

And, of course, this discussion is about a conspiracy. It's existence is what's at issue. Calling me paranoid is simply circular argument.

Actually, the difference between my tone and yours ended when I boiled at your exasperating refusal to acknowledge the relevance of Edmonds' suit. Sorry!

Yeah - you are misstating her case. Go to her own website "www.justacitizen.com'

As for the tone of my voice? I'm not dating you, I'm debating you. I'm happy to let the facts speak for themselves.

Also - props to an earlier poster who mentioned Atta's passport being found. It's hardly miraculous. Letters that the planes were carrying on behalf of the USPS were found scattered all over the area. I remember someone having the idea of trying to collect them and forward them on to their destinations as a way of honoring the people who lost their lives that day.

If you really think Edmonds' case is irrelevant to 9/11 government complicity, check out this page
www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds.htm
and those it links to. In them you'll find many of Edmonds' statements on 9/11.

For example, regarding the 9/11 Commision Report:
antiwar.com/edmonds/
“...I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I, as a witness to the commission, made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues I am not aware of were also omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake – our national security – we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, ..., request your response to the following questions and issues.”

In this letter Edmonds details several specific egregious episodes in which FBI managers obstructed the transmission of 9/11-related intelligence to those within the government who needed it, while allowing its transmission to a foreign power; episodes of which she had first-hand knowledge, about which she had testified to the 9/11 Commission, and which the Commision had excluded from its report.

Among these episodes: FBI mangers, putatively in a quest for more resources, had imposed a slowdown on the translators right after 9/11, just when their services were critically needed. Also after 9/11, the FBI had hired an obvious foreign agent into a sensitive translating position, permitted the agent, once exposed, to continue in the position for a while, then allowed the agent to flee abroad and escape prosecution. And how about this:

“More than four months prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that: 1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities; 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes; 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States; 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing 302 forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the special agent in charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to 'keep quiet' regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and a report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004, stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001. Furthermore, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller saying that Mueller was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing. Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on Feb. 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, locations, witness names, and contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information (please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided by Mr. Sarshar on February 12, 2004 and given to your investigators). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this issue (please refer to DOJ-IG report 'Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation,' provided to you prior to the completion of your report).”

Also you'll find the following article, regarding the criminal government context of 9/11, which offers some likewise relevant quotes from Edmonds:
www.madcowprod.com/mc6412004.html
"The 9/11 terror plot intersected with the activities of a drug trafficking network of international scope, in ways that form a 'crystal clear' picture of what was going on.” --Sibel Edmonds.

"You have a network of people who obtain certain information and they take it out and sell it to … whomever would be the highest bidder. Then you have people who would be bringing into the country narcotics from the East, and their connections. It is only then that you really see the big picture. The post-9/11 intelligence 'failures' included the willful quashing by the government, of investigations tracing these criminal networks.”-- Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator

Perpetrators indict themselves by trying to hide evidence. The pile of evidence supporting the thesis of conspiracy includes much obstruction of justice by officials. Sibel Edmonds' case comprises but a portion of this pile. Any one of the episodes she reports would be ground for suspicion of her immediate superiors. Taken as a whole, along with the attempts by the Attorney General and the 9/11 Commission to hide her testimony from the public, her case alone reveals a criminal infection of the Executive Branch extending to the Cabinet level. Take it in conjunction with the rest of what's publicly known about 9/11, its prelude and aftermath, and you have grounds to prosecute Bush, Cheney, a couple of Cabinet officers, and a number of their subordinates.

Bush's long and stubborn resistance to the 9/11 inquiry, and the cynicism evident in his appointments to the commission, are consistent with a desire to hide evidence, not reveal it.

Why was Dave Frasca, an FBI official overseeing terrorism investigations involving Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, promoted after 9/11 even though he blocked at least two investigations that might otherwise have exposed the 9/11 plot before it was executed?

Why was John O'Neill, an FBI official overseeing terrorism investigations into Al Qaeda, prevented from pursuing leads pointing to the Saudis, causing him to quit in disgust (and take a job managing WTC security, where he died on 9/11)?

Why did NIST hide the calculations it used in its modeling the structural evolution of the buildings from plane impact to the start of collapse? And why didn't they model the collapse itself?

How was it that the Cheney, Rumsfeld, & co. were presiding over four or five (at least) simultaneous war games, including live-fly exercises and fake radar injects, on 9/11, significantly hampering attempts by the FAA and Air Force to respond to the attacks?

There is very strong evidence that the invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11. Much of the force used in the conflict was either en route or already in position at staging areas before 9/11, under pretext of military exercises, and a US envoy had secretly delivered a war ultimatum to the Taliban during unsuccessful oil pipeline negotiations earlier that summer. Notwithstanding this, more than one of those present in the Oval Office deliberations over how to respond to 9/11 have revealed that Rumsfeld wanted to redirect the attack from Afghanistan to Iraq, despite the lack of any evidence then (or since) that implicates Iraq. This episode makes clear the character of this administration and those leading it. These are very dangerous mass murderers who belong behind bars, the sooner the better.

==

“14 alert fighter aircraft since the Clinton years”: This sounds very imrobable on its face; there are at least a dozen Air Force and Air National Guard bases within reach of the 9/11 targets. Regardless, 14 alert fighters are plainly sufficient to intercept 4 passenger jets. Why were the handful actually scrambled misdirected out over the Atlantic? Why is the official who issued these directions (as opposed to those who relayed them) still anonymous?

I think I mentioned it before, but the more I think about this, this -is- like talking with 'Creationists'.

They say they just want to teach the 'controversy' when in fact, there is none. It is just them repeating that there is one.

Do you believe this stuff? Who knows. I suppose whether you do or don't doesn't only anything except what is inside your head, but whatever.

I suppose it would be interestng to hear what organizations -aren't- in on this incredible conspiracy, but of course logic and facts don't matter. You should check out the Creationist web sites. You'll find you have much in common.

So while I still like to hang around Indy and point out nonsense, I've had my fill of this chapter. Thanks for writing.

Creationists cherry-pick anomalous items from the geological record which they claim supports their case while pretending away the much larger mass of facts that contradict it. Indeed, facts are relatively unimportant to their views, which are faith-based. In this respect, they resemble those who pretend away the preponderant evidence of complicity within the US government on 9/11, evincing righteous outrage at all who would doubt the good faith of those in power.

what i don't get about you pat, is why you "enable" this type of discussion. some here are capable of ignoring circular arguements, while remaining skeptical of the "official story", at the same time.

you seem to spend alot of energy repeating yourself, and name-calling the 2 imcs, in the 2 relevant cities, that never highlight these theories.

Isn't the fact that you're both debating one of the "largest world changing events ever to happen" that can't be proven now because the crime scene was packed up and shipped to China suspect enough???