Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
|Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:07 pm Post subject: What should be on the Evidence page of the main site?
|On the front page under "Why are they challenging it?" it is suggested to insert a link to a page presenting the evidence in a one page summary for visitors who are coming across the evidence for the first time
Here is the best we have come up with to date.
Does anyone have any comments? The main pages of the site aim to present a platform we are all happy to unite and work under so clearly no mention of missisles and pods here. It is important that we select the most compelling evidence from mainstream news sources. Where possible questions or issues that would be so easy to clear up if only there were a genuinely independent inquiry
Any attempt to independently ascertain what happened on September 11th reveals inconsistencies, impossibilities or complete gaps in the information provided by both the 9-11 Commission Report and the Congressional Joint Inquiry Report.
Information reported by journalists and independent researchers alike has been ignored by the 9-11 Commission and only casually referred to by much of the media, if mentioned at all. New information is continually being discovered.
The remaining unanswered questions could be addressed and rebutted if the necessary information were to be provided. The refusal of both the British and American authorities to do so in the face of widespread criticism further reinforces the need for a urgent new, independent inquiry into the events of September 11th 2001.
The 9-11 Commission Report fails to mention
1. That following the 9-11 attacks, the Taleban repeatedly offered to hand over Osama bin Laden if evidence was provided showing that he was behind the attacks (BBC, BBC). None was forthcoming Independent, apart from the dossier presented by Tony Blair to Parliament. The dossier’s opening sentence reads
“This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.”
2. That “State Department officials”, at a meeting with the Taleban in Berlin in July 2001, were advising allies that Afghanistan would be invaded in October (BBC, 18th September 2001)
3. Several of the men, whom the FBI maintains were the hijackers involved in the 9-11 attacks, have apparently turned up alive and well.(Independent, BBC, and others)
4. The collapse of WTC Building 7 is not even mentioned by the Commission Report. WTC Building 7 was the third steel skyscraper to collapse on 9-11 (NIST, HBO and others).
5. The collapse of WTC 7 occurred at around 5.20 pm when only small fires on two floors were visible. The building collapsed perfectly in on its own footprint. Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center buildings, said this in 2002 on the PBS documentary “America Rebuilds”:
“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said ‘Y’know, we’ve had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse” (PBS)
6. The controversy surrounding what hit the Pentagon. Five frames from a Pentagon CCTV camera were released (BBC and others), however the source of the images is unknown, since no-one will admit to having released them. The five frames do not show the Boeing 757 which was alleged to have hit the Pentagon and both the time and date in the display are incorrect.
A gas station opposite the Pentagon had its surveillance tape, which showed the impact, seized by FBI agents within minutes of the attack. (Richmond Times). Video from the rooftop cameras of a DC hotel, believed to be the Sheraton, was confiscated by the FBI after employees had sat watching it in “shock and horror.” (Bill Gertz, Washington Times)
7. The hijackers were described as bad pilots, yet they performed expert manoeuvres on the morning of 11th September 2001.
Hani Hanjour, allegedly the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, said to have hit the Pentagon, was described by one former flight school employee in the New York Times as follows:
“I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,” the former employee said. “He could not fly at all.”
CBS quotes Peggy Chevrette, an Arizona flying school manager, as saying:
“I couldn’t believe that he had a commercial licence of any kind with the skills that he had.”
Despite the pilot’s apparent lack of flying prowess, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles, Danielle O’Brien, who was watching the approach of flight 77, commented that
“The speed, the maneuverability, the way he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (ABC)
8. Advance warnings of the attacks, some using very specific and accurate information, were provided to US authorities by as many as 11 different nations, including the Taleban (BBC). Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly appeared in an interview on MSNBC on 15th September 2001, where he confirmed that he “had ordered Russian intelligence to warn the US government “in the strongest possible terms” of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings” before the 9-11 attacks. (WSWS)
9. The official timeline for the scrambling of Air Force jets to intercept and/or shoot down the hijacked passenger jets has changed several times, with no explanation for why mistakes were made in previous accounts or why the latest version is more trustworthy than its predecessors.
General Richard B Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at his confirmation hearing on 13th September 2001 that no fighter jets were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit at around 9.38 am. (Transcript).
However, CBS News reported on September 14th 2001, that F15s were scrambled from Otis AFB before the Pentagon was hit, but providing no source for the information, simply “CBS News has learned.”
On 18th September 2001, NORAD released a new timeline which stated that fighter jets were airborne at 8.52 am (NORAD), however there remains to this day no adequate explanation for why none of the planes were intercepted in time, according to standard procedure.
10. FBI agents, intelligence officers and other government employees have been whistle-blowing, or providing information about the attacks since they happened.
Indira Singh’s allegations, presented to the Commission, about the ongoing failure to deal with terrorist connections to software company P-Tech, involved in computer systems for the Departments of Justice, Energy, Customs, the US Air Force, The White House, the FAA and others. P-Tech was chiefly funded by Yassin Al-Qadi, who President George W Bush designated a global terrorist on 12th October 2001. (CBS, FrontPageMag, Scoop)
as well as or instead of this, the conclusions from Webster Tarpley's book hhave been suggested as a good summary
1. The government's assertion that the so-called hijackers operated without being detected by official surveillance is UNTENABLE, and evidence is strong that the alleged hijackers acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself. The hijackers were therefore in all
probability expendable double-agents or, more bluntly, patsies.
2. The government's assertion that the four supposedly hijacked airliners
were taken over and piloted by the four accused hijackers identified by the FBI IS AT OR BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PHYSICAL AND TECHNICAL REALITY. The planes were in all probability guided to their targets by some form of remote access or remote control.
3. The government's assertion that the failures of air defense were caused
by the fog of war is LAME AND ABSURD. Air defense was in all probability
sabotaged by moles operating inside the government.
4. The government's assertion that a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon is
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Some other type of flying object, possibly a cruise missile, must therefore be considered.
5. The government's assertion that the Twin Towers of the World Trade
Center collapsed as a result of the impact of aircraft and the subsequent
fire is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The fall of the towers cannot be explained without the hypothesis of controlled demolition of some form, possibly including unconventional methods employing new physical principles.
6. The government's assertion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5:20pm EDT on September 11 purely as a result of fire is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The collapse of WTC 7 is coherent with controlled demolition of the conventional type.
7. The government's assertion that United Flight 93 crashed because of
actions by the hijackers or because of a struggle in the cockpit is
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, given the pattern in which the wreckage was
distributed. All evidence points towards the hypothesis that United 93 was
shot own by US military aircraft.
8. The government's refusal to investigate insider trading in American
Airlines and United Airlines put options, the wholesale seizure and
destruction of evidence, the systematic intimidation of witnesses by the
FBI, and a series of other incidents point unmistakably to an attempted
COVER UP on the part of the entire US government and establishment.
Suggestions, ammendments, any inaccuracies in this information that anyone is aware of please
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
|Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject:
|killtown have collected just about everything 911 related on their site, so many 'smoking guns' etc.
► Rudy Giuliani says he was told South WTC was going to collapse. (ABC)
► Basement worker of North WTC North hears explosion below him, then a rumble above him, then saw severely burnt man come out of basement elevator. (CNN)
► Sen. Graham, Rep. Goss, and other US Intel committee members have meeting morning of 9/11 with Paki ISI director who had authorized $100,000 wire transfer to Atta. (Wall St Journal / Washington Post)
► WTC landlord says he gets a call from a fire chief about the WTC 7 and he recommends to him to "pull it" and after they "decided to pull," they all watched the 7 collapse. (PBS video)
http://www.geocities.com/killtown/ - one of the best info compliations IMO.
Does this article unintentionally give the real reasons why the WTC was destroyed?
"...the so-called Twin Towers at the World Trade Center were hated by many New Yorkers...the Twin Towers were always money-losers...and required huge subsidies from the State...the WTC complex was ludicrously costly to heat and light...In New York City, obsolete buildings are infrequently saved...The only thing that saved the Twin Towers from demolition was the fact that they were filled with asbestos, which would be released into the air if the buildings were destroyed by controlled explosions. In 2000, the Port Authority calculated that it would cost $1 billion...to remove the asbestos..."
A New Garden of Eden
- NY Psycho-geographical Assoc. (11/30/01)