Replies

"So, what do you think happened?"

A lot that were not being told. I'm sorry, but I just can buy the government incompetence argument, not that we have seen many examples of that in the past. It seems that a lot of people all over the world knew these attacks were coming, and someone seems to be protecting Bin-Laden, if he's not actually dead from his kidney disease.

It seems like if field agents had been allowed to do their jobs, it would have never happened. David Schippers is representing many of the FBI agents who were prevented from dong anything and their outraged. Why wasn't the military better able to intercept the jets, especially the one that hit the Pentagon? No planes ready at Andrews AFB nearby? Wait, isn't that one of their primary missions, to protect the capital. And if no planes were available, why not? Didn't somebody just try and ram a Cessna into the White House a few years ago?

The idea of using planes as missiles was well known to govt intel circles, despite what Ms. Rice says. US troops were prepositioned in Krygistan before 9/11. Read Zbignew Bryzinski's book "The Grand Chessboard", where he admits it would take an attack by Afghanistan on America to get America to seize Afghanistan, in order to accomplish the goal of establishing dominance over Asia and the Middle east by taking the strategic area of Central Asia. And he wrote that in 1997.

So was Bin-Laden still working for the CIA in 2001? Is Saddam Hussein?

I also think its curious that some of the terrorists visited a strip bar and got stinking drunk in Florida the night before the attacks. Hardly behavior of those thinking they're going to go to Heavan and get their 72 virgins. They interviewed a Saudi brother of one of the rich terror boys on NBC a few nights ago who said his brother wasn't even religious. According to what Bin-Laden said, the hijackers didn't know they were going to die.

There is a lot more than this. Go to fromthewilderness.com and you can read a timeline of nearly 80 very interestng coincidences and facts. I also recommend infowars.com, which has an extensive array of reports from reputable media, which taken together, paints a much different picture than the government would like us to see.

Cui bono? Who benefits. Follow the money....and the power. I think you'll find much to raise questions in your mind. Thanks for taking this thread, and questions seriously

Thanks for your reply. I am very aware of Project Bojinka, and so was Clinton, and anybody else involved in the federal government. I'm sorry I can't respond to your post point-by-point by now - I'm already behind in my editing.

I am certain, however, that Xlinton wantonly ignored national security during the entire eight shameful years that he occupied the White House. I am also certain that had the CIA not been scrubbed for "human rights reasons", we would have had more people on the ground. You can't gather all intelligence electronically, just like you can't fight every war from the air.

It also seems that the various intelligence branches were not only lacking in communication and compilation of intelligence, they were actually in adversarial positions. Even now, it's like watching commencement exercises at a clown college - and they know what they're defending against!

I have a hard time taking this article seriously - which is NOT to say that governments haven't historically acted in a nakedly Machiavellian manner. Just the basic facts don't add up. If you look at the ATC flight tracks of these hijacked flights, they were at times too erratic for remote control to be reasonable.

The hijacker pilots of Flights 11 and 175 nearly collided over Stewart AF Base, on their way towards the Twin Towers. The hijackers of Flight 77 couldn't find the White House (partly because the morning sun was in their eyes), and turned to approach the Pentagon, which is much easier to see.