[Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max Cleland: "thisgovernmentknew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted...."

Thu Mar 25 15:36:46 PDT 2010

I offered well documented facts that the Bush administration knew that "Bin
Laden determined to strike in US," from an August 6, 2001 briefing (here is
a partial transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/  ), and that it was
known that using commercial jets as weapons was a potential tactic, despite
rather incredible statements from National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
post 9/11 that there was "nothing to suggest" the 9/11 style attacks were
likely.  Condoleezza Rice was/is too intelligent and well educated to make
this statement, so I suspect she was engaging in public relations propaganda
to whitewash Bush administration failures regarding 9/11.  Note the comment
in the August 6 briefing that mentions the prior World Trade Center attack,
as an example of what Bin Laden intended.  How difficult could it be to
predict that finishing the job of the prior World Trade Center attack, to do
major damage to the building(s), would be a likely terror plot?

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_post-9/11_world=denials&timeline=complete_911_timeline

>From website immediately above:
 May 16, 2002: Nobody Predicted 9/11-Style Attacks, Says Condoleezza
Rice<http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a051602rice#a051602rice>
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice states, “I don’t think anybody
could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it
into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon,
that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,” adding that “even in
retrospect” there was “nothing” to suggest that. [White House,
5/16/2002<http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html>
] Contradicting Rice’s claims, former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon
acknowledges that such a scenario has long been taken seriously by US
intelligence: “If you ask anybody could terrorists convert a plane into a
missile? [N]obody would have ruled that out.” Rice also states, “The
overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was
likely to take place overseas.” [MSNBC, 5/17/2002] Slate awards Rice the
“Whopper of the Week” when the title of Bush’s August 6 briefing is
revealed: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” [Slate,
5/23/2002<http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066154>
] Rice later will concede that “somebody did imagine it” but will say she
did not know about such intelligence until well after this conference.
[Associated
Press, 9/21/2002]

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:46 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> I question that they are well documented facts. There may very well be
> those that would have liked it to occur.
> That does not mean any on in authority allowed it to happen. You usually
> rely on science. You should know that you can't prove a negative.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:03:04 -0700
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
>  Subject: Re: Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max Cleland:
> "thisgovernmentknew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September
> 11
> than it has ever admitted...."
>
> > There are well documented facts, offered in the sources I referenced,
> that
> > raise serious questions about the actions (or non-actions) of US agents
> > during the Bush administration, regarding why more was not done to stop
> the
> > 9/11 attacks.  To label these questions "ridiculous," is to dismiss these
> > important facts as though you have certainty that there were no agents of
> > the US who wished to exploit a terror attack against the US to pursue the
> > agenda of the "Project for the New American Century."  As for proof, I
> did
> > not claim to have *proof* that the 9/11 attacks were "allowed" to happen.
> > But consider, there is no proof that I am aware of, that there was not
> > complicity of US agents to allow 9/11 to happen, to exploit a terror
> attack,
> > a "new Pearl Harbor," to push for the expansion of US military power as
> > described at the document at the website below.  Or can you offer such
> > proof?  If not, the question remains open.
> >
> > "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy,
> > Forces and Resources for a New Century" September 2000:
> >
> > http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:49 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There has many books written,lawsuits and movies about the Warren
> > > Commission also. Anybody can write a book speculating on conspiracies.
> This
> > > is not proof of anything.
> > > Roger
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
> > > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:10:31 -0700
> > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > Subject: Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max Cleland: "this
> > > governmentknew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September
> 11
> > > than it has
> > > ever admitted...."
> > >
> > >  > If there was an effort to exploit a pending terror attack, a "new
> Pearl
> > > > Harbor,"
> > > > to pursue an agenda of expansion of US military power (as outlined by
> > > "The
> > > > Project for the New American Century" neo-cons (
> > > > http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf  ),
> the
> > > > efforts would have been black-ops intelligence, with multiple layers
> of
> > > > plausible tenability and secrecy such an effort would demand.  And if
> > > anyone
> > > > thinks the US does not engage in black-ops, that are guarded with the
> > > utmost
> > > > secrecy, I have some ocean front property for sale in Utah at a
> bargain
> > > > price.
> > > >
> > > > I am not basing my concerns regarding questioning the actions of US
> > > agents
> > > > before 9/11 and after on wild speculation or fringe conspiracy
> theories.
> > > >
> > > > Credible well researched investigations into the 9/11 Commission
> uncover
> > > > numerous very serious problems with their conclusions.  Before
> closing
> > > your
> > > > mind, you might want to do more reading:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/books/04thom.html
> > > >
> > > >  THE COMMISSION
> > > >
> > > > The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission
> > > >
> > > > By Philip Shenon
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080234
> > > > Whitewash as public service:
> > > > How *The 9/11 Commission Report* defrauds the nation
> > > >
> > > > *By Benjamin DeMott <http://www.harpers.org/subjects/BenjaminDeMott
> >*
> > > >
> > > > *----------------------------------------*
> > >  >
> > > > http://911pft.com/pft/catalog/In-Their-Own-Words-p-10.html
> > > >
> > > > In late 2006, the movie 9/11 Press For Truth became a worldwide
> > > underground
> > > > hit. It exposed the story of the "Jersey Girls" and their allies --
> the
> > > 9/11
> > > > families who had fought for the Commission but ultimately failed in
> > > seeing
> > > > 70% of their questions answered.
> > > >
> > > > A unique, balanced look at a diverse group of topics includes:
> > > >
> > > >    - Top officials' whereabouts and changing stories on the day of
> 9/11
> > > >    - Insider trading before the attacks
> > > >    - War games coinciding with Sept. 11th
> > > >    - A confrontation between the families and FBI Director Mueller
> > > >    - British reports that some of the hijackers named by the FBI are
> > > simply
> > > >    wrong
> > > >    - Government whistleblowers' calls for accountability
> > > >    - The FBI informant who lived with 2 of the hijackers
> > > >    - A Defense Department program that identified 4 hijackers in 2000
> > > >    - The families' push to receive the Pentagon crash tapes
> > > >    - Bin Laden extradition negotiations after 9/11
> > > >    - The Project For the New American Century
> > > >
> > > > ----------------
> > > > http://www.911truth.org/downloads/9-11_coverup_booklet.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Former 9/11 commissioner and Senator Max Cleland attacked his own
> > > commission
> > > > after the other members cut a deal to accept highly limited access to
> CIA
> > > > reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the
> > > > attacks on the part of the Bush administration. "This is a scam,"
> Cleland
> > > > said. "It's disgusting. America is being cheated."
> > > >
> > > > "As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government
> knew
> > > a
> > > > whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has
> > > ever
> > > > admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan
> to
> > > go
> > > > to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to
> war."
> > > > ------------------------------------------
> > > > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:31 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am glad that you say "if". Regardless of that is is ridiculous to
> > > assert
> > > > > that it may have been planed by anyone in the Bush administration.
> To
> > > say
> > > > > some heads should have rolled may be appropriate , but hind sight
> is
> > > always
> > > > > better than foresight.
> > > > > Roger
> > > > > -----Original message-----
> > > > > From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
> > > > >  Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:01:38 -0700
> > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Power Hour "Libertarian" Radio
> > > > > ShowPromotesClaim of 9/11 Cover-up[
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am not saying President W. Bush deliberately allowed 9/11 to
> > > happen,
> > > > > > except insofar as he was incompetent. And the historical facts in
> my
> > > post
> > > > > > are accurate.  Name one fact in the post you responded to that is
> not
> > > > > well
> > > > > > verified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *If, and I emphasize if*, there was any deliberate intentional
> > > > > malfeasance
> > > > > > among agents of the US to exploit a pending terror attack against
> the
> > > US
> > > > > to
> > > > > > promote the agenda of the "Project for the New American Century"
> > > (Cheney
> > > > > and
> > > > > > Rumsfeld supported this project) which is rather explicit in
> > > documents
> > > > > > noting that a "new Pearl Harbor" would provide the justification
> for
> > > an
> > > > > > expansion of US military hegemony, President W. Bush would likely
> > > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > a figure head, not a planner of such malfeasance, and likely kept
> out
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > loop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some think that Cheney was more president, in reality, than Bush
> > > during
> > > > > his
> > > > > > presidency.
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------
> > > > > > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your history is distorted. Bush did not allow 9/11 to happen
> > > anymore
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen( I am not a fan of either).
> On
> > > Pearl
> > > > > > > Harbor the Japanese code was broken and a message was sent out.
> > > Neither
> > > > >  FDR
> > > > > > > or the military higher ups received it.
> > > > > > > Roger
> > > > > > >  -----Original message-----
> > > > > > > From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
> > > > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:33:05 -0700
> > > > > > > To: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Power Hour "Libertarian" Radio
> Show
> > > > > > > PromotesClaim of 9/11 Cover-up[
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > President Bush's August briefing before 9/11 explicitly
> stated
> > > "Bin
> > > > > Laden
> > > > > > > > determined to strike in US."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I question the theory that the 9/11 attacks and the collapse
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > buildings involved was orchestrated by agents of the US.  But
> the
> > > > > theory
> > > > > > > > that 9/11 was "allowed" to happen, that there was substantial
> > > > > evidence
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > terrorists were going to strike the US, but the aggressive
> > > actions
> > > > > > > required
> > > > > > > > to stop the attack were deliberately avoided, is possible,
> given
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > neo-con "Project for the New American Century" explicitly
> stated
> > > in
> > > > > > > military
> > > > > > > > think tank analysis prior to 9/11 ("Rebuilding America's
> > > Defenses:
> > > > > > > Strategy,
> > > > > > > > Forces and Resources for a New Century" September 2000:
> > > > > > > >
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ),
> > > > > > > that a
> > > > > > > > "new Pearl Harbor" would provide the justification for the
> > > expansion
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > > military power into the Middle East and elsewhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At best, the fact that more aggressive steps were not taken
> to
> > > stop
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > 9/11
> > > > > > > > attacks, reveals gross incompetence, if not a deliberate
> > > conspiracy
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > exploit a major terror attack against the US as a "new Pearl
> > > Harbor"
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > expand US military/economic hegemony.  Cheney and Rumsfeld
> signed
> > > the
> > > > > > > > "Statement of Principles" for the "Project for the New
> American
> > > > > Century"
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > 1997 (
> > > http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm).
> > > > > > >  It is
> > > > > > > > no surprise they assumed positions of great power in the
> second
> > > Bush
> > > > > > > > administration, given the agenda to expand US
> military/economic
> > > > > hegemony
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > planned well in advance, if they could gain the White House
> back.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I won't continue a history lesson here (the two websites
> below
> > > offer
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > critical analysis of 9/11 orthodoxy).  But there are very
> serious
> > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > that can be raised regarding why more aggressive steps were
> not
> > > taken
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > stop the 9/11 plot, given the information we know the US
> > > government
> > > > > > > > possessed regarding the plans for a terror attack on the US,
> who
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > carry
> > > > > > > > out such an attack, and that use of commercial aircraft as
> terror
> > > > > weapons
> > > > > > > > was known prior to 9/11 as a likely method.  Bush
> administration
> > > > > national
> > > > > > > > security advisor Condoleeza Rice was either woefully
> uninformed,
> > > > > which I
> > > > > > > > doubt given her intelligence, or engaging in "spin"
> propaganda to
> > > > > hide
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > tracks of Bush administration failures regarding the 9/11
> > > attacks,
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > she
> > > > > > > > made the statements quoted from the second website below:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405E.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_post-9/11_world=denials&timeline=complete_911_timeline
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >From website immediately above:
> > > > > > > >  May 16, 2002: Nobody Predicted 9/11-Style Attacks, Says
> > > Condoleezza
> > > > > > > > Rice<
> > > > > > >
> > > http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a051602rice#a051602rice
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [image: Edit event]<
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.historycommons.org/eventedit.jsp?oid=1626004942-36209&drafts=null&timeline=complete_911_timeline
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [image: National Security Adviser Rice tries to explain what
> Bush
> > > > > knew
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > when in her May 16, 2002 press conference.]National Security
> > > Adviser
> > > > > Rice
> > > > > > > > tries to explain what Bush knew and when in her May 16, 2002
> > > press
> > > > > > > > conference. *[Source: CNN]*National Security Adviser
> Condoleezza
> > > Rice
> > > > > > > > states, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that
> these
> > > people
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center,
> take
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an
> > > airplane
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > missile,” adding that “even in retrospect” there was
> “nothing” to
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > that. [White House,
> > > > > > > > 5/16/2002<
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ] Contradicting Rice’s claims, former CIA Deputy Director
> John
> > > Gannon
> > > > > > > > acknowledges that such a scenario has long been taken
> seriously
> > > by US
> > > > > > > > intelligence: “If you ask anybody could terrorists convert a
> > > plane
> > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > missile? [N]obody would have ruled that out.” Rice also
> states,
> > > “The
> > > > > > > > overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack
> > > that
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > likely to take place overseas.” [MSNBC, 5/17/2002] Slate
> awards
> > > Rice
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > “Whopper of the Week” when the title of Bush’s August 6
> briefing
> > > is
> > > > > > > > revealed: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” [Slate,
> > > > > > > > 5/23/2002<http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066154>
> > > > > > > > ] Rice later will concede that “somebody did imagine it” but
> will
> > > say
> > > > > she
> > > > > > > > did not know about such intelligence until well after this
> > > > > conference.
> > > > > > > > [Associated
> > > > > > > > Press, 9/21/2002]
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> > > > > > >  > On 3/14/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Trust, once lost, takes a lot of work to get back.  When
> you
> > > have
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > U.S.
> > > > > > > > > government arming Osama and the CIA enabling drug
> trafficking
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Contras, it's not a big stretch to wonder if they had any
> > > > > involvement
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > 9/11.  There are enough strange things surrounding 9/11
> that I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > > surprised to find the government was involved.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The reason I obey traffic laws has more to do with safety
> than
> > > > > trust of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > government.  Generally, the system works well enough that
> you
> > > can
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > have some faith in a contract, and some hope the police
> will
> > > > > respond if
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > call them.  I wouldn't want to be the guy that happened
> across
> > > some
> > > > > > > > > confidential documents or saw the wrong thing go down at
> the
> > > wrong
> > > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > > though.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wayne Price wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Ted, et al,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> One has to ask, or at least I do, why would people put any
> > > faith
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > >> wild stories?  While, I don't agree with 9/11 being an
> inside
> > > job,
> > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > >> a general distrust of ALL levels of government that just
> > > > > > > > >> feed  into things like this. And not just on the national
> > > level,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> importantly at the local levels as well. For instance,
> does
> > > anyone
> > > > > > > living in
> > > > > > > > >> Northern Idaho really think the "boys in Boise"  even care
> > > about
> > > > > North
> > > > > > > > >> Idaho?
> > > > > > > > >> If they feel that way, why? Does anyone trust an
> employment
> > > > > contract
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> retirement contract with the U of I? If not, why? Can you
> > > trust
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> speed limits on our county roads are legitimate? If not,
> why?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Distrust of "government",once it starts, is hard to turn
> > > around
> > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > >> believe that in America, we have a long long way to go.
> > > > > Perceptions,
> > > > > > > good or
> > > > > > > > >> bad are real, even though they may not be true. And it is
> in
> > > the
> > > > > light
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> those perceptions  that people live, not in light of the
> truth
> > > or
> > > > > > > falsity of
> > > > > > > > >> an issue.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >  > >> On Mar 13, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> There are a lot of "conservatives" who believe in a
> government
> > > > > > > cover-up
> > > > > > > > >>> regarding the facts of 9/11.
> > > > > > > > >>>  There is a radio show that has a large following that
> has
> > > been
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> air for years, that I have listened to numerous times on
> > > > > shortwave,
> > > > > > > that is
> > > > > > > > >>> very political but in some ways hard to stereotype.  I
> > > suppose
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > >>> call it hard core libertarian (they passionately promoted
> Ron
> > > > > Paul's
> > > > > > > > >>> presidential bid), which means that it is very
> distrustful of
> > > > > > > government in
> > > > > > > > >>> a consistent aggressive way that many traditional
> > > "mainstream"
> > > > > > > conservatives
> > > > > > > > >>> are not.  Anti-abortion views are expressed, which fits
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >>> Republican agenda, but there are two issues that have
> > > received a
> > > > > lot
> > > > > > > of air
> > > > > > > > >>> time where the show has argued for government cover-ups,
> Gulf
> > > War
> > > > > > > Syndrome
> > > > > > > > >>> among vets, and 9/11.  This show aggressively attacked
> the
> > > Bush
> > > > > > > > >>> administration, and is doing the same to Obama's.  Main
> > > website
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >>> radio show:
> > > > > > > > >>>  http://www.thepowerhour.com/
> > > > > > > > >>>  ---------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >>> The following documentary described at the website below,
> > > > > promoted by
> > > > > > > > >>> "The Power Hour," pulls no punches regarding what it
> claims
> > > was
> > > > > "a
> > > > > > > massive
> > > > > > > > >>> cover-up" regarding 9/11:
> > > > > > > > >>>  http://www.thepowermall.com/
> > > > > > > > >>>  *911 In Plane Site
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> *New* "The Directors Cut" *with *"More Footage - More
> > > Photographs
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > More
> > > > > > > > >>> Evidence" *
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> *PRODUCER: Dave vonKleist*
> > > > > > > > >>> DIRECTOR: William Lewis
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Due to the overwhelming response of "911 In Plane Site,"
> we
> > > were
> > > > > able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> collect mountains of new footage and photographs from
> sources
> > > all
> > > > > > > over the
> > > > > > > > >>> world. We can now say, without a shadow of doubt, that we
> > > have
> > > > > > > undeniable
> > > > > > > > >>> evidence of a massive cover-up. From the 16 ft. hole in
> the
> > > outer
> > > > > > > walls of
> > > > > > > > >>> the Pentagon to the news reports of bombs, explosions and
> > > > > potential
> > > > > > > > >>> demolition of World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7, to the
> strange
> > > > > > > attachment on
> > > > > > > > >>> the bottom of Flight 175 and the mysterious flashes
> caught on
> > > > > > > videotape by
> > > > > > > > >>> at least five separate sources, it is clear - 911 was an
> > > inside
> > > > > job.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> From Dave vonKleist, co-host of The Power Hour radio
> program
> > > and
> > > > > > > > >>> writer/producer of the album "Will Someone Listen" &
> William
> > > > > Lewis,
> > > > > > > producer
> > > > > > > > >>> of "American Freedom News", "TruNews" and producer/writer
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > album
> > > > > > > > >>> "Police State" comes a full length documentary exposing
> one
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > largest
> > > > > > > > >>> conspiracies ever uncovered. With the pounding force of a
> > > > > > > sledgehammer you
> > > > > > > > >>> will find yourself horrified and astonished at the shear
> > > scope of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> largest transgressions ever carried out against the
> people of
> > > the
> > > > > > > United
> > > > > > > > >>> States and indeed... of the entire world.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> > > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Gier, Nicholas <
> > > > > NGIER at uidaho.edu
> > > > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > > > >>> NGIER at uidaho.edu>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    Greetings:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    The Tea Party candidate in the three-way primary for
> Texas
> > > > > > > > >>>    governor said to Glenn Beck that she was still looking
> at
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>    evidence for a 9-11 cover-up.  Beck's response was
> > > something
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > >>>    "We'd better look at another candidate!"  Yes the Tea
> > > Party
> > > > > > > > >>>    people include not only "birthers" but "truthers."
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    Nick Gier
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > >>>    From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > >>>    <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com> on behalf of
> > > Garrett
> > > > > > > Clevenger
> > > > > > > > >>>    Sent: Fri 3/12/2010 11:36 AM
> > > > > > >  > >>>    To: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] teabaggers
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    "I have yet to see you, Tom, Nick or Wayne comment on
> > > those
> > > > > left
> > > > > > > > >>>    wingers
> > > > > > > > >>>    that think that 9/11 was an inside job of the Bush
> > > > > > > Administration."
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    I don't think only some left-wingers believe that.
>  Some
> > > > > > > > >>>    far-righters think there is a greater conspiracy
> relating
> > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>    that, too.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    I don't think it's a stretch, though, to assume GWB
> used
> > > 911
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>    advance an agenda they had been planning on for a
> while
> > > (the
> > > > > > > > >>>    PATRIOT act, invading Iraq, etc)
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    That makes GWB look suspicious, especially considering
> > > some of
> > > > > > > > >>>    the discrepancies surrounding the 911 commission,
> which
> > > Bush
> > > > > > > > >>>    initially was against.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    It's also suspicious that that Bush and Cheney both
> > > refused to
> > > > > > > > >>>    testify under oath to the 911 commission.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    Until someone looks at the arguments the 911 truthers
> are
> > > > > > > > >>>    conveying (and there is lots of interesting arguments
> in
> > > their
> > > > > > > > >>>    favor) you probably shouldn't be condemning what they
> say.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    I have no idea what the truth is, but I do know that
> > > powerful
> > > > > > > > >>>    people are in control and do despicable things to
> advance
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > >>>    power, whether thats an islamofacist or whoever...
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>    Garrett Clevenger
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100325/292847fb/attachment-0001.html 