Best Article Yet On 9-11 Hoax

[JSJ]

http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/content/issue17/oped/911.php

A mass movement and a mountain of disturbing evidence has been growing beneath the radar of U.S. media. The U.S. media (including alternative media) has done an extraordinarily superhuman job of "hearing" "seeing" and "speaking no evil." However, almost immediately after 9-11-2001's horrendous attacks on New York and Washington D.C., many researchers, ordinary citizens, and journalists began to smell something rotten . . . not in Denmark . . . but rather, right here in the good ol' US of A.

Please read the full article. No confusing timelines and... no hedging- except for the 'put options'.- JSJ

[louis c]

1. WOW!!!!

[Senior citizen]

2. Excellent. Well done.

Thanks for the link.

:kick:

[roper]

3. At first I thought

you meant that those who oppose the official view are the "hoax"...

[robcon]

4. Classic conspiracy theory

A opaque description of what might have happened... what could have happened... what can't be disproven. In other words, a hazy conspiracy theory, not a chronicle.

No description of what happened. No proof of what actually happened, (who, what, where, when, why.) In its place, the article is a murky story with dropped names and vague accusations.

Obscure wording like "associates," "mountain of facts," and "truth movement."

This article doesn't' pass the smell test.

[Q]

5. Neither do you...

...And you nicely represent those who seem satisfied with accepting the official version of events...which includes Bush* being 'hustled out of the classroom' upon hearing that a second plane had hit the towers. Most Americans actually seem to believe this...based on what they've been told by the WH and their 'free' press. But there is VIDEO EVIDENCE that he didn't rush off to do his duty. He SAT THERE instead of doing his job as 'commander in chief'. This is damning stuff...but the media refuses to report it.

- And the above is but ONE example of the inconsistencies and outright lies presented by the Bush* WH...a WH that tried everything to keep the 'next Pearl Harbor' from being investigated. (Another fact on the record.)

[markses]

6. What's your research methodology?

I always like to hear from researchers about their methodologies. So, soince there are so many 9/11 researchers, are there a set of research methodologies? Are there disputes about which research methodlogies are more or less effective? Is there a grounding for the kinds of interpretations these methodologies allow or constrain? I'm just curious. Research is fine, but how esxactly do you define it, what are your standards of proof, what are your protocols for inclusion and exclusion?

[roper]

10. Nice question. But hypocritical.

You know that these people are no researchers, if you use the standards of academia.

But it is not quite fair to discredit them because they ask ad-hoc questions, without relying on well-defined theories. Or do you want to claim that established academic researchers are dealing with the many open questions regarding 9/11 (not only with some technical questions)? And you cannot deny that questions and inconsistencies exist. The only exception known to me is P.D. Scott.

As long as you do not use the same high standards against the official version -- which is postulated by institutions which much more resources than private citizens who ask questions -- you are not fair.

Do you claim that the official version meets your standards? And please don't answer there is no official version.

[markses]

19. I did not "discredit" anyone

Strange that you would see some hostility in the question. Some folks said they were researchers; I asked after their methodology. Why this should be interpreted as an attack or as implicit support for some other version of events is beyond me. A simple answer to the question would have sufficed. I suppose that answer is in your post, however: It is an ad hoc method without any particular grounding (except, perhaps, the kind of suspicion and vitriol displayed so warmly in your post there).

[roper]

20. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post

But I had the impression that you implicitly discredited the people questioning the official version of 9/11, because you assumed a lack of well-defined methods.

I think it is quite clear that they (at least, in most cases) are no academic researchers who empirically test theoretical models, using established methodologies. So your question seemed rhetorical to me.

But perhaps it was not.

Perhaps you have specific methods in mind. How should someone proceed, who has only in his spare time, who thinks that the official version of 9/11 has more wholes than explanatory power? (Perhaps he should avoid the terms "researcher" and "theory" as this might hint to defined academic terms who are not meant here).

[markses]

29. There is always a method

Or some coherent (or, in many cases, incoherent) amalgam of methods. That should be clear enough. Nobody proceeds in an inquiry without some set of methods for determining what is important, what counts as data (criteria for inclusion and exclusion), what kinds of data merit interpretation, and what particular school of interpretation you happen to be relying on (what grounds your interpretation). You are always using some method(s). The question is not whether there is a method or not. The question is whether a researcher is aware of his or her methodology, its possibilities and constraints, its theoretical underpinnings, what it warrants and what it doesn't warrant. The danger, of course, is that an inconsistent methodology throws both the reliability of your findings and - more importantly - their persuasive force into question. That's why people explicitly develop coherent methodologies in the first place (it ain't just cuz a dissertation advisor told you that you had to, in other words). So, then the question becomes: What are the methodologies and are they consistent? What kinds of findings or conclusions do they allow researchers to make? What kind of qualifiers are necessary given the limitiations of a particular methodology or interpretive system? This is not, fundamentally, a question of "academic" or "non-academic" attitudes towards research. this is a basic question about the credibility of findings. If your methods are hidden or merely implicit even to you, how do you expect others to take your conclusions seriously?

[roper]

34. Thanks for your explanation

That was an abstract discussion of the importance of methods in the search for cognition. If you apply this to my above-mentioned case (#20), the free-time sceptic of 9/11, what specific procedures do you suggest?

Which seminal papers are dealing with the oddities of 9/11?

[markses]

46. I don't "suggest" any

I'm trying to figure out which set of procedures are already in use. That's what I've been asking about all along.

[roper]

49. Yes, but I ask you to suggest some

As you seem to be knowledgeable on research designs and methodologies, you have perhaps some methods in mind that are suited for the described kind of problems.

Personally I have some knowledge about organizational research or management, but I assume specific methods are tied to specific disciplines (even though general principles of theory building and deduction are probably similar). So the set of methods known to me does not help here. So I ask you for suggestions.

[markses]

55. I do not know the current methods

That's what I'm trying to figure out. the current methods. How could I suggest some new ones if I don't know the ones currently in operation. And if there is a disciplinary imperative, do we even know the "discipline" of this kind of research. It would seem to me cross- or multi-disciplinary (engineering, history, journalism, etc.), but I really don't know. And, of course, each of these disciplines operates through a variety of methods.

It seems that even to ask this question is some kind of attack that dtaws the most ridiculous vitriol (see stickdog's bizarre responses below). I am not sure why. I'm asking after the current methods because I'm curious. Since I do not do this kind of research, I couldn't possibly know what is current. So I looked to the people who do this kind of research to explain their methods. And suddenly I'm carrying water for the Bush Administration! I suppose I'm not going to get a real answer here.

[roper]

57. Discipline?

That's what I ask myself. Certainly there are some technical questions for engineers, but I assume the most important ones belong to political sciences or what we in Germany call "Zeitgeschichte" (contemporary history?)

The only academic I know in Germany who partially works on similar topics is Prof. Krysmanski, he is a sociologist and deals with questions of elites in societies.

It seems to me that established science does not see a research questions anywhere in the 9/11 complex. However, I'm sure these could be found.

But I must admit, your question referring to the current methods seems to still very hypothetical. As I said, those who ask valid questions like Ruppert (www.fromthewilderness.com), Hopsicker, Paul Thompson etc. achieve interesting results, but I am quite sure most of them seldom ask themselves which methods they apply.

But probably they can expect little help from academia.

[markses]

58. We're just going in circles

They apply some method. They must. They must have some criteria and mode of inquiry. Otherwise, nothing would get done, and no selection would be made at all. That is not "hypothetical." Whether or not these methods are explicit, they are indeed followed.

[roper]

59. Indeed.

I am convinced they use their methods implicitly, without consciously defining a framwork and so on.

It seems we cannot resolve the matter here.

[stickdog]

39. So much hot air.

So little helpfulness.

[markses]

44. Oh, my bad

I didn't realize that it was my duty to help those who were trying to persuade me by filling them in on basic features of persuasion.

[stickdog]

60. Persuade you about what?

Not to be such a pedantic obstructionist?

[yodermon]

16. Good questions..

..to ask those who espouse the official story.

Ask them: What research methodologies did YOU employ that that led YOU to the conclusion that 19 Arabs with questionable piloting skills hijacked 4 planes with boxcutters and flew them with pinpoint accuracy into their desired targets?

What research methodologies did YOU employ that led YOU to the conclusion that the WTC could collapse in on itself at the speed of free-fall, with no internal resistance?

What research methodologies did YOU employ that led YOU to the conclusion that a huge passenger jet plowed into the pentagon, but only made a tiny hole, leaving no wings and no tail behind.

Answer: my research methodologies are 1) listen to what the government tells me, 2) believe what the goverment tells me, and 3) don't question what the government tells me.

[markses]

18. So basically

The 9/11 researchers don't have a research methodology? Is that what you're saying? Of course, it is clothed in a frontal attack on the research methodologies of the official version, but it is a non-answer nonetheless. You don't have a methodology. Fair enough. Seems strange to call it research, then. I don't believe that the purveyors of the so-called official version describe their activity as research, in any case.

[hang a left]

24. RESEARCH

Research


Definition: Research
Research
Noun
1. Systematic investigation to establish facts.

2. A search for knowledge; "their pottery deserves more research than it has received".

Verb
1. Inquire into.

2. Attempt to find out; "The student researched the history of that word".

Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

[markses]

28. Point being?

n/t

[roper]

36. "purveyors of the official version describe their activity as research"

They declare the results of their sloppy investigations as the truth. Period. They let no room for doubts or caveats.

[markses]

47. This is true enough

However, I think most would at least attempt an explanation of their own methods, whether they are the scientists/charlatans who explain how the buildings came to fall, or the investigators/gubmint hoaxsters who purport to describe the organization of the al-Qaeda cells.

[stickdog]

40. So much hot air.

So little meaning.

I don't believe that the purveyors of the so-called official version describe their activity as research, in any case.

Thank God for that! Because such a semantical mistake would surely destroy the underpinnings of their otherwise unassailable narrative.

[markses]

48. That's a lot of the same post

For someone accusing somebody else of hot air. What's your method, anyway? Apparently it's not semantics!

[stickdog]

61. My method is consists of analyzing the most primary sources available

on the internet or at my local libraries for internal inconsistencies; provably illogical, inconsistent or inacurrate disinformation masquerading authoritive and/or expert analysis; and relevant connections between any individuals issuing, reporting, analyzing, confirming and disseminatinating this disinformation.

IMHO, your "method" consists of using big words and pseudo-intellectual philosopical and semantical musings to "debunk" these efforts. IMHO, we work at cross purposes. My purpose is to discover the truth using common sense, basic reasoning skills and aggressive skepticism, while yours is to obscure the truth using flowery rhetorical devices and comforting, but highly questionable, teleological generalizations.

[psychopomp]

64. Well put

And that explanation was enough to silence your persistant interlocutor. Sorry, markses, but your discourse, while probably will all the best intentions, was not going anywhere. I sympathize, since it is a common ailment that befalls those who spend too much time reading Deleuze, Guattari, Lacan, Baudrillard, etc. I should know, I was one of them.;)

"Research" could just as well be called digging or fact-finding in this case.

[robcon]

7. No I'm just a skeptic.

I prefer facts and data, not imagined relationships, associates and coincidences.

I think skepticism is what is required about 9/11.

[roper]

9. You prefer facts. Nice. Who doesn't...

but somehow you seem to suggest that the official version is based on facts, whereas alternative theories are not. Or am I mistaken here?

To be precise: What many 9/11 sceptics do is asking questions and pointing out inconsistencies, not all of them postulate new versions of the "truth".

[frankly_fedup2]

56. What gets me about Bush's comments as to why he did not

rush out of the school was because he did not want to scare/alarm the children. Then, when he finally does appear on the T.V. before his plane takes off WITHOUT military protection, who are standing beside him, behind him . . . the children. Did he think they were deaf to what he was saying? Him standing in front of all the children stating that "We have been attacked," or "are" being attacked and then explaining about the planes flying into the WTCs.

Also, they state they had Air Force One flying all over the place because they had heard some kind of code that applied to that plane and were afraid the plane was going to be attacked. Would it not be safer for the plane to take off without the President and see if it was attacked as they feared. But, again, when that plane left Florida, there were no military planes in site to protect it.

Also, when Andrew Card came out and whispered to the President about another plane hitting, he did not stop and wait for any decision the President might make. He just whispered it and walked off. Bush's look of complete confusion did appear to me to be genuine though. I mean that man looked like he was going to crap his pants.

Also, if they knew they may be attacked next, why would he stay in a school full of children? He could have cost the lives of all of those children if the attack threats against him and where he was at were set into place.

Did the commission cover any of these things? Did the Commission cover the Put stocks and talk to the people who made the most money that day? Did the commission even talk to anyone about how when the towers fell, they looked like perfect demolition . . . floor by floor. They can say hot fuel running down the steel structures all they want; however, the second tower hit fell first, and it was not hit straight on like Tower 1 was.

Also, did they commission find out who the person was who stated over the intercom in Tower 2 that it was okay to return to their offices, even though there was already a plane in the first Trade Center Tower?


Also, I have many more for them. They have until July 26th to complete it. I do not think there should be a deadline, especially if the commission does not feel it has not completed the report.

Time will tell I suppose.

[roper]

8. No, the official version is clear and proven

if that is what you mean.

Occam's razor clearly proves the incompetence theory.

/sarcasm.

[Old and In the Way]

11. So your sarcastic about the incompetence theory?

Does that mean you have an alternative theory on what happened on 9/11?

All I know is we spend $400BB a year on defense and the Pentagon couldn't defend itself with a 52 minute "head's up". One has to cut the "official story" a lot of slack to believe our military was that incompetent. Interesting that not one person in the chain of command has been reprimanded, demoted, fired, or indicted for this gross incompetence that led to the deaths of 3000 Amercans. Of course, if there was a concerted effort to "let it happen", then the last thing you'd want to do is start conducting a criminal inquiry into who was responsible.

[roper]

12. Yes

People are free to believe in a million of odd coincidences. I don't do that.

I have no clear alternative theory, but I have the impression of a covert operation that has been planned since some years, the marketing of which is underway since many years (as Kupferberg indicates in this article: Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11).

I think many people underestimate the abilities of intelligence operations to conduct such operations (after all, the money is not spent ineffectively). And the argument "too many people know, someone would talk" is BS, because, as long as the media ignore the whistle blowers or ridicules them as "conspiracy idiots", some whistle blowers are no problem at all. Look at Sibel Edmonds. Look at successful conspiracies like Bilderberg, CIA drug-smuggling. Non-existent for the media.

And that nobody has been fired, if everything was just a big mistake, is the biggest joke.

on edit:
Some people throw around the "occam's razor" buzzword, as though that alone would prove the incompetence "theory".

[Old and In the Way]

30. I hear yeah!

Thanks and welcome aboard!

This "investigation" of 9/11 should give every American pause. If this is the level of accountability that we can expect when 3000 are killed, why should we be surprised when another attack occurs....after-all, the same people will still be in the command line. And what is the threshold for holding people accountable? Do 100,000 Americans have to be killed? 300,000? 3,000,000?

Seems to me that people who were in critical choke points for connecting the dots were rewarded for their failure (ie, Frasca in the FBI). And General Meyers, who was oddly incommunicado on 9/11 sailed through his promotion 2 weeks later. Strange coincidences, indeed.

[indigobusiness]

32. Absolutely. It isn't essential that a skillfull attack is launched

to shed light on this darkness.... The important thing is that the door is forced open, just wide enough, to let all the facts see the light of day.

Skill and method be damned, they can serve lies as well as truth


on edit--- It's quite possible I have never said anything quite as absurd in my life...and I stand by it.

[stickdog]

38. The official 9/11 "story" doesn't pass the smell test.

In fact, it stinks to high heaven.

[Sterling]

13. Kick

nt

[Eloriel]

14. Not sure I'd call it the best article yet

And the Newtopia editor needs to look up the meaning of "beg the question" and the correct spelling of milquetoast.

Here's something new to me, from the author's site:

The Rice/Zelikow Connection
The Kean Commission and its Conflicts of Interest

Condoleeza Rice is a household name. But most Americans still have never heard of the man who wrote a book with her, Philip Zelikow. As the executive director of the Kean Commission, Zelikow is responsible for framing the agenda. He leads the research staff. He decides what evidence the commission sees.
http://www.911truth.org/

[merh]

15. I had not heard this:

A conservative French newspaper, La Figaro, reported an incredible fact, that the CIA station chief in Dubai had met with Osama Bin Laden weeks before the 9-11 attacks as Osama was being treated at a U.S. Army hospital in Dubai. Yet, even though Osama was on the CIA most wanted list, the CIA station chief did not only NOT arrest him, but met with him and then reportedly went back to the U.S. for high level meetings in Washington following his meeting with Osama.

.............

My god, why has this been ignored in our press? (I know the answer, I am just outraged!)


Thanks for the link - this is a great piece. How can we get the video???

[nannah]

21. It is incredible information if it is validated,

but what is the source? can it be verified?

i'm not doubting in a cynical way. just needing data to support passing this on.

[TNOE]

23. Minstrel Boy's Post is a good place to start

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1836172&mesg_id=1836172&page=

[nannah]

25. what a great resource! thanks alot!

the tale told by the truth seekers certainly connects the disparate dots scattered when you back through the money and become re linked to bcci et al.

[nannah]

26. what a great resource! thanks alot!

the tale told by the truth seekers certainly connects the disparate dots scattered when you back through the money and become re linked to bcci et al.

[nannah]

27. what a great resource! thanks alot!

the tale told by the truth seekers certainly connects the disparate dots scattered when you back through the money and become re linked to bcci et al.
on edt.
oooops, apologize for triple post. thought computer had gone off line.

[roper]

22. Here is the Figaro text (in french)

The sources are vague, and the hospital staff later denied the report (naturally..)

Le Figaro, n° 17799
Mercredi 31 octobre 2001, p. 1-5

UNE

Gravement malade, l'ennemi public numéro un a séjourné à l'hôpital américain de l'émirat au début de l'été
Juillet 2001 : Ben Laden rencontre la CIA à Dubaï

Atteint d'une maladie rénale, Oussama ben Laden a séjourné du 4 au 14 juillet dernier à l'hôpital américain de Dubaï, où il aurait rencontré un responsable de la CIA, selon un témoin, partenaire professionnel de la direction administrative de l'hôpital.

En provenance de l'aéroport de Quetta, au Pakistan, celui qui est devenu depuis les attentats du 11 septembre l'ennemi public numéro un a été immédiatement transféré dès son arrivée à l'aéroport de Dubaï. Il était accompagné de son médecin personnel et fidèle lieutenant qui pourrait être l'Egyptien Ayman al-Zawahari, de quatre gardes du corps, ainsi que d'un infirmier algérien.

En mars 2000 déjà, l'hebdomadaire Asia Week, publié à Hongkong, s'inquiétait de la santé de Ben Laden, faisant état d'un grave problème physique précisant que ses jours étaient en danger à cause d'une « infection rénale qui se propage au foie et nécessite des soins spécialisés ». Selon des sources autorisées, Ben Laden se serait fait livrer, au cours du premier semestre 2000, un matériel mobile de dialyse dans son repaire afghan de Kandahar.

Le déplacement sanitaire à Dubaï n'était pas le premier, poursuivent nos sources. Entre 1996 et 1998, Oussama ben Laden s'y était rendu plusieurs fois pour ses affaires. Durant son hospitalisation, en juillet, il reçoit la visite du représentant local de la CIA. Celui-ci sera rappelé à Washington le 15 juillet, au lendemain du départ de Ben Laden pour Quetta.

Quinze jours plus tard, les douaniers émiratis arrêtent à l'aéroport de Dubaï un activiste islamiste franco-algérien, Djamel Beghal. Les autorités françaises et américaines sont alertées. Interrogé à Abu Dhabi, Beghal raconte qu'il a été convoqué en Afghanistan fin 2000 par Abou Zoubeida un responsable militaire de l'organisation de Ben Laden Al Qaida. La mission de Beghal : faire sauter l'ambassade des Etats-Unis à Paris.

Selon des sources diplomatiques arabes et les services de renseignements français, des informations très précises ont été communiquées à la CIA concernant des attaques terroristes visant les intérêts américains dans le monde. Un rapport de la DST du 7 septembre rassemble ces données précisant que l'ordre d'agir devait venir d'Afghanistan.

...

[merh]

33. Okay, I'll take your word for it since I can't read French.

Thanks. ;-)

[TeeYiYi]

17. Good article . . .

. . . I would love to see that documentary.

TYY:kick:

[ArkDem]

31. Great Article!!!!!!

The only thing I didn't like is that Douglas has an aol email address, EEEEWWWWWW.

[Dover]

35. Honestly, if the MIHOP or LIHOP theories ARE basically true, would

'the powers that be' ever allow that to be known? Or would the truth be suppressed for "the good of the country", as Iran Contra and others have been?

I think the closest they will come to the truth is to allow for the 'incompetence' theory, which also serves the more limited goal of expediting Bush's ouster from office. Beyond that, I certainly don't expect to see Kerry or anyone else inside the Beltway pursue it.

[roper]

37. I completely agree

Certainly Kerry would not pursue these ideas.

Michael Ruppert thinks that Kerry's drug investigation was effectively a kind of "limited hangout", which finally closed the topic. So, the incompetence will be tolerated. However, they could add some credibility if they acted on this premise, e.g. fire the responsible officials (Frasca, Myers, and so on).

[Swamp Rat]

41. Willkommen!

We need as many researchers as possible on this board willing to add substance to the dialectic.


Prosit! :toast:

[roper]

50. Dankeschön!

I'll do my best...

[rman]

43. as of yet the truth is being suppressed -

succesfully enough so that 'they' do indeed get away with it, for now that is.
Any suppression of truth does not have to be total and absolute in order to be effective. The suppression only needs to be sufficient so that 'they' don't get caught.

As with Iran Contra, there is a period of time where some people know while a majority doesn't know and/or denies it. As in most of these cases, more likely then not eventually the truth will be revealed for all to see.

[TomNickell]

42. YAFSCT!!!!!

Yet Another Fucking Stupid Conspiracy Theory.

New day, Same shit.

It's time for you fellows to move on to a new hobby.

[rman]

45. we fellows do not require your advice on what to do, thanks.

-

[roper]

52. You are free to leave this thread. nt

[stickdog]

62. My God, you are a one trick pony.

How many of your almost 900 posts follow this exact same pattern?

Do you have any political concerns other than deriding the thoughts of those less inclined to accept "conventional wisdom" than you?

[RBHam]

51. London Daily Mail review of The New Pearl Harbor

by Sue Reid
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-06-24-dailymail.php

At the Cannes Film Festival last week, a predominantly
American audience gave maverick film director Michael
Moore a standing ovation for his controversial film,
Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie, which won the coveted Palme
D'Or, is a blistering critique of the Bush
administration's motives for the "war on terror," and
even goes so far as to suggest that the Twin Tower
atrocities provided a convenient mandate for America to
invade Iraq.

Reaction to the film is one more sign of the growing
cynicism over the President's handling of the
catastrophic events of 9/11. Yet the questions that
Moore's movie pose scratch only the surface. Now, an
explosive book on the happenings of 9/11, which raises
even more controversial issues, is about to be
published. It will be damned in some quarters as
nothing other than the irresponsible ramblings of
conspiracy theorists or the wild rantings of anti-war
activists. Much of what it says has been criticised, and
flatly denied, by the White House and America's
intelligence services.

Yet its findings have garnered an enthusiastic response
from sections of America's intelligentsia and a former
British Cabinet Minister, the MP Michael Meacher, wrote
the foreword of the book. In it he says: "Never in
modern history has an event of such cataclysmic
significance been shrouded in such mystery. So many of
the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible
basis, and so many of the key actors have put forward
contradictory accounts only to be forced to retract or
cover up later."

Whether he is right or not, the book is tellingly
called The New Pearl Harbor, a pointed reference to the
theory that President Roosevelt cynically allowed a
Japanese assault on the U.S. fleet in 1941 to force
America into World War II.

The book makes some deeply unpalatable - and frankly
incredible - assertions, even querying if the Al Qaeda
attacks would have happened without the complicity of
America's most powerful politicians and policy-makers.
Written by the academic author and American theologian,
Professor David Ray Griffin of Claremont School of
Theology, California, it challenges almost every
official account of the day and among the disturbing
questions it asks are . . .

more...

[Mnemosyne]

63. re: old Pearl Harbor

great aunt and uncle were in Navy when it happened and claim that most of the 'big'boys, ie, generals etc. left in the days before attack.

[RBHam]

53. Nazi Germany's War On Terror

http://c0balt.com/resources/terror/terror.shtml

[RBHam]

54. FBI ADMITS: NO EVIDENCE LINKS ‘HIJACKERS’ TO 9-11

The possibility that 19 Muslim men accused of being the Sept. 11 hijackers were not, in fact, the hijackers, is not so extraordinary an idea as it might seem.

Exclusive To American Free Press

By Michael Collins Piper

After seven months of non-stop declarations by U.S. government spokesmen that there exists solid proof tying 19 Muslim men to plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller has now admitted quite the opposite.

That 19 Muslim men who have apparently disappeared have been named as the hijackers is not in doubt.

What is in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything, either individually or together.

The amazing possibility remains that others carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using the identities of the 19 Muslims who have been assigned guilt in the tragedy.

In an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his words, “left no paper trial.” The FBI director stated flatly:

"In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot."

more...

http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/20_FBI_ADMITS-NO_EVIDENCE-LINK.htm

Expert: Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs
By Daniel Sieberg
CNN

(CNN) -- FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that some of those behind last week's terror attacks may have stolen the identification of other people, and, according to at least one security expert, it may have been "relatively easy" based on their level of sophistication.

more...

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

MANY OF THE 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE



http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/2373.php