Theory 1 - No one knew except the terrorists
Theory 2 - The Bush admin is covering up its incompetence
Theory 3 - The Bush admin found out, but did nothing
Theory 4 - The Bush admin masterminded 911
Theory 5 - Other (post your theory below)

I voted other. We may never know for sure.

I was tempted to vote for Bush incompetence, which is clearly a fact imho- but it could be more than that. We just do not know, do we ?

Well, the poll asks "what you believe"

Not what do you "know"

If everyone answers other, then someone has to manually count and do the math.

#3 until further notice

I voted 5, as a modified 3. I think it's becoming clearer through the (I can't spell his name) hijacker trial that members of the FBI had the puzzle solved, only to be ignored by superiors. Throw in the other members of the FBI that had information about other aspects of the plot, and Able Danger, and it's clear that people at the top were asleep at the wheel.

Now, I'm not yet set to say anyone in the White House was culpable, because the evidence that cannot be refuted does not point there, yet.

I voted they were covering up their incompetence, though in some sense I agree with #3, that they "knew" but did nothing. I don't think they knew planes would strike on Sept 11 at 8:46, but they knew something was up and they did not do all they could to protect the United States. Whether their failure is by design, incompetence or a mix of the two is impossible to say.

Yeah, this too.

I also have to agree with how you voted. I too voted for #2 but feel that #3 is also true because of the way the Katrina event/disaster was handled. If I can credit Bush and his administration with one thing it would be that they are always busy covering up things that they didn't take care of in the first place, the "right way".

KT

Okay. I do not know what I believe yet. Thus I answered "other."

I voted 4.

I can't PROVE that BushCo was involved; but I know they were looking for that "Pearl Harbor Event" to attack Iraq.

Indirect proof.

Never hold up in court.

IHOP. It Happened On Purpose. PNAC. BCCI. Carlyle Group. It all ties together.

Remember the memo "BinLadin Determined to Strike Inside the United States" Bush recieved from Harriet Miers in August of 2001? Yet did nothing and stayed on vacation? They knew and it was by design. Just look at his actions.

I voted #3.

It's #2 at the least, but #4 is doubtful. We all know, for sure, that there was plenty of warning.

sign me up for a generous #3

That's what I think too.

I voted for #3.

#4 is a definite possibility. On some days I believe #4. But every single day I believe #3, so I voted for #3.

What I really belive is probably something like 3.5.

They knew and did nothing and they also helped the situation along a little without masterminding the whole thing. They knew it was coming and decided to let it happen on purpose. And did a few things to help it along but without qualifying for "masterminding" the whole thing.

Theory 6
When it comes to electing representatives in 2006, 9/11 will not be a deciding factor in any major election as far as theories 1-5 go. Security may be an issue, however, but that's an entirely different subject.

I Vote Theories 2,3, and 5.


Moussaoui's Guilt: Less Profound Than the FBI's Own Negligence?:

FBI Special Agent Harry Samit's testimony yesterday at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial adds just one more piece of evidence to a growing list of incidents showing what Samit himself labeled "criminal negligence."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/index.php...dgeway&id=72620


FAA Reportedly Dismissed Moussaoui Concern

By Jerry Markon and William Branigin

In emotional testimony in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui today, the former manager of an Arizona flight school that trained one of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers told a federal jury that she had expressed alarm about her student to the Federal Aviation Administration and cried when she...

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle


DEBKAfile adds: Various intelligence and other informants encountered the same Washington unresponsiveness as did FBI agent Samit prior to 9/11

March 21, 2006, 4:09 PM (GMT+02:00)

From early 1997 up until mid-2000, certain intelligence agencies and private individuals, including Israelis, tried to bring relevant information of the coming al Qaeda attack in New York to the attention of security authorities in Washington. Most were general in nature, but in at least one instance, specific data was put before Clinton administration officials and the FBI of a possible air attack by hijacked airliners against the Twin Towers. They encountered a wall of resistance. At that time, the Clinton White House was deeply engaged in a bid for a breakthrough in Israel-Palestinian peacemaking. Washington then believed that an American strike against al Qaeda would provoke anti-US demonstrations across the Muslim world and disrupt the American mediation effort in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The Bush administration took office in January 2001. Eight months later, FBI agent Harry Samit arrested Zacarias Moussaoui. He tried in vain to persuade his superiors to take seriously and investigate his findings about an Islamic fundamentalist who took flight training and was interested in Osama bin Laden. The new administration, which had no knowledge of the previous president’s motives in setting aside the al Qaeda inquiry, saw no reason to change standing directives for the CIA and FBI on the subject. So Samit’s warnings went unheeded by default.

The situation in Jerusalem today strongly recalls Washington’s heedlessness in the years before the Sept. 11, 2001 to attacks that cost more than 3,000 lives. Al Qaeda lurks on Israel’s doorstep in the Gaza Strip and more recently the West Bank, but the current Israeli government has no time to address the danger.

Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.


March 21, 2006
F.B.I. Agent Testifies Superiors Didn't Pursue Moussaoui Case
By NEIL A. LEWIS
ALEXANDRIA, Va., March 20 — The F.B.I. agent who arrested and interrogated Zacarias Moussaoui just weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks told a jury on Monday how he had tried repeatedly to get his superiors in Washington to help confirm his certainty that Mr. Moussaoui was involved in an imminent terrorist airline hijacking plot.

But, said the agent, Harry Samit, he was regularly thwarted by senior bureau officials whose obstructionism he later described to Justice Department investigators as "criminally negligent" and who were, he believed, motivated principally by a need to protect their careers.

Mr. Samit's testimony added a wealth of detail to the notion that officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation played down, ignored and purposely mischaracterized the increasingly dire warnings from field agents in the Minneapolis office that they had a terrorist on their hands in Mr. Moussaoui.

"I accused the people in F.B.I. headquarters of criminal negligence" in an interview after Sept. 11, Mr. Samit acknowledged under intense questioning by Edward B. MacMahon Jr., Mr. Moussaoui's chief court-appointed lawyer.

Mr. Samit confirmed that he had told Justice Department investigators that the senior agents in Washington "took a calculated risk not to advance the investigation" by refusing to seek search warrants for Mr. Moussaoui's belongings and computer. He testified that he had come to believe that "the wager was a national tragedy."

Mr. Samit was a witness for the prosecution, which is trying to have Mr. Moussaoui executed for the deaths that occurred on Sept. 11. In his direct testimony more than a week ago, he bolstered the prosecutors' case by saying that had Mr. Moussaoui answered his questions honestly when he arrested him for immigration violations, it would have set off a chain of inquiries that could have foiled the Sept. 11 plot.

But under Mr. MacMahon's questions, Mr. Samit provided much new evidence and testimony suggesting strongly that the more significant factors in the failure to learn of the plot from Mr. Moussaoui involved the decisions of senior F.B.I. officials.

Mr. Samit's testimony paralleled the complaints of Coleen Rowley, an agent and lawyer in the Minneapolis office who sent a letter on May 21, 2002, to the bureau director, Robert S. Mueller III, bitterly criticizing the performance of F.B.I. headquarters agents in handling the Moussaoui case.

But unlike Ms. Rowley, who has since left the bureau, Mr. Samit remains an agent and tried on Monday to adopt a defensive posture on its behalf. Nonetheless, his testimony provided a vivid condemnation of the bureau, as he was obliged to confirm how he had told investigators of his belief that his superiors had tried to sidestep their responsibilities.

Mr. Samit said two senior agents had declined to provide help in obtaining a search warrant, either through a special panel of judges that considers applications for foreign intelligence cases or through a normal application to any federal court for a criminal investigation.

As a field agent in Minnesota, he said, he required help and approval from headquarters to continue his investigation. He acknowledged that he had asserted that Michael Maltbie, a supervisor in the bureau's Radical Fundamentalist Unit, had told him that applications for the special intelligence court warrants had proved troublesome for the bureau and that seeking one "was just the kind of thing that would get F.B.I. agents in trouble."

Mr. Samit wrote that Mr. Maltbie had told him that "he was not about to let that happen to him." During that period, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had complained about improper applications from the bureau.

Mr. Samit also acknowledged that he had asserted to investigators that David Frasca, Mr. Maltbie's superior, had similarly blocked him from seeking a search warrant under the more common route, a criminal investigation. Some of the special court's complaints dealt with the idea that law-enforcement officials were sometimes exploiting the lower standard required for warrants in intelligence investigations and then using the information that they obtained in criminal cases.

Mr. Frasca, Mr. Samit explained, believed that once the Moussaoui investigation was opened as an intelligence inquiry, it would arouse suspicion that agents had been trying to abuse the intelligence law to get information for a case they now believed was a criminal one.

Mr. Samit's comments, which were made to investigators for the Justice Department's inspector general and in a subsequent memorandum to the F.B.I., had not been made public before. The report by the inspector general on the bureau's Sept. 11 performance was released in June 2005 but had substantial deletions.

Mr. Samit said senior bureau officials had even been told he was trying to prevent someone from flying a plane into the World Trade Center.

William Carter, an F.B.I. spokesman, said that neither the bureau nor Mr. Maltbie nor Mr. Frasca, who are still employed there, would have any comment.

The cross-examination of Mr. Samit was delayed after his initial testimony when the trial was interrupted following disclosures that a government lawyer had improperly coached several aviation security officials who were to testify.

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that because of the coaching, the prosecution would be unable to use those witnesses to make the case that security could have been bolstered, possibly foiling the plot, if Mr. Moussaoui had told Mr. Samit about his knowledge of plans by Al Qaeda to fly planes into buildings.

Judge Brinkema's sanctions on the prosecution for Ms. Martin's behavior nearly wrecked the government's case. But on Friday, Judge Brinkema ruled that the government could try to find new untainted aviation security witnesses.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032106Z.shtml
FBI Agent Slams Bosses at Moussaoui Trial
By Michael J. Sniffen
The Associated Press

Monday 20 March 2006

Alexandria, Va. - The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in August 2001 testified Monday he spent almost four weeks trying to warn U.S. officials about the radical Islamic student pilot but "criminal negligence" by superiors in Washington thwarted a chance to stop the 9/11 attacks.

FBI agent Harry Samit of Minneapolis originally testified as a government witness, on March 9, but his daylong cross examination by defense attorney Edward MacMahon was the strongest moment so far for the court-appointed lawyers defending Moussaoui. The 37-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent is the only person charged in this country in connection with al-Qaida's Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

MacMahon displayed a communication addressed to Samit and FBI headquarters agent Mike Maltbie from a bureau agent in Paris relaying word from French intelligence that Moussaoui was "very dangerous," had been indoctrinated in radical Islamic Fundamentalism at London's Finnsbury Park mosque, was "completely devoted" to a variety of radical fundamentalism that Osama bin Laden espoused, and had been to Afghanistan.

Based on what he already knew, Samit suspected that meant Moussaoui had been to training camps there, although the communication did not say that.

The communication arrived Aug. 30, 2001. The Sept. 11 Commission reported that British intelligence told U.S. officials on Sept 13, 2001, that Moussaoui had attended an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. "Had this information been available in late August 2001, the Moussaoui case would almost certainly have received intense, high-level attention," the commission concluded.

But Samit told MacMahon he couldn't persuade FBI headquarters or the Justice Department to take his fears seriously. No one from Washington called Samit to say this intelligence altered the picture the agent had been painting since Aug. 18 in a running battle with Maltbie and Maltbie's boss, David Frasca, chief of the radical fundamentalist unit at headquarters.

They fought over Samit's desire for a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer and belongings. Maltbie and Frasca said Samit had not established a link between Moussaoui and terrorists.

Samit testified that on Aug. 22 he had learned from the French that Moussaoui had recruited someone to go to Chechnya in 2000 to fight with Islamic radicals under Emir Ibn al-Khattab. He said a CIA official told him on Aug. 22 or 23 that al-Khattab had fought alongside bin Laden in the past. This, too, failed to sway Maltbie or Frasca.

Under questioning from MacMahon, Samit acknowledged that he had told the Justice Department inspector general that "obstructionism, criminal negligence and careerism" on the part of FBI headquarters officials had prevented him from getting a warrant that would have revealed more about Moussaoui's associates. He said that opposition blocked "a serious opportunity to stop the 9/11 attacks."

The FBI's actions between Moussaoui's arrest, in Minnesota on immigration violations on Aug. 16, 2001, and Sept. 11, 2001, are crucial to his trial because prosecutors allege that Moussaoui's lies prevented the FBI from discovering the identities of 9/11 hijackers and the Federal Aviation Administration from taking airport security steps.

But MacMahon made clear the Moussaoui's lies never fooled Samit. The agent sent a memo to FBI headquarters on Aug. 18 accusing Moussaoui of plotting international terrorism and air piracy over the United States, two of the six crimes he pleaded guilty to in 2005.

To obtain a death penalty, prosecutors must prove that Moussaoui's actions led directly to the death of at least one person on 9/11.

Moussaoui pleaded guilty last April to conspiring with al-Qaida to fly planes into U.S. buildings. But he says he had nothing to do with 9/11 and was training to fly a 747 jetliner into the White House as part of a possible later attack.

Samit's complaints echoed those raised in 2002 by Coleen Rowley, the bureau's agent-lawyer in the Minneapolis office, who tried to help get a warrant. Rowley went public with her frustrations, was named a Time magazine person of the year for whistleblowing and is now running for Congress.

Samit revealed far more than Rowley of the details of the investigation.

MacMahon walked Samit through e-mails and letters the agent sent seeking help from the FBI's London, Paris and Oklahoma City offices, FBI headquarters files, the CIA's counterterrorism center, the Secret Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, an intelligence agency not identified publicly by name in court (possibly the National Security Agency), and the FBI's Iran, Osama bin Laden, radical fundamentalist, and national security law units at headquarters.

Samit described useful information from French intelligence and the CIA before 9/11 but said he was not told that CIA Director George Tenet was briefed on the Moussaoui threat on Aug. 23 and never saw until after 9/11 a memo from an FBI agent in Phoenix about radical Islamists taking flight training there.

For each nugget of information, MacMahon asked Samit if Washington officials called to assess the implications. Time after time, Samit said no.

MacMahon introduced an Aug. 31 letter Samit drafted "to advise the FAA of a potential threat to security of commercial aircraft" from whomever Moussaoui was conspiring with.

But Maltbie barred him from sending it to FAA headquarters, saying he would handle that, Samit testified. The agent added that he did tell FAA officials in Minneapolis of his suspicions.

--------

Associated Press Writer Matthew Barakat contributed to this report.

I think the same....

Clinton did nothing to improve the safety of passengers. I always bought a BA ticket or another European airline...even at great cost...because they are aware of the supposed dangers of hijackings by terrorists...even though I don't think hijackers did this. The thing is, you cannot make someone a patsy unless you make it appear possible for them to do a thing first. They apparently learnt nothing after PanAm 103 over Lockerbie - another illuminati event - whose purpose was to come down hard on Libya and get their oilfields cheaply. Just threaten sanctions whenever they step out of line...and accuse them of something they did not do and when they find them guilty get them to pay massive compensation...heads we win, tails we win. Lyndon Larouche not only thinks George Bush did it...but he is documented as having predicted exactly such an event...a psychological black operation like the one Hitler did. Why? Because they want a Muslim versus Zionist war as outlined by the Freemasons in Albert Pike's visionary letter, which, like Bush's National Guard history, was conveniently destroyed.

Ultimate aim is to control the world from Jerusalem with the Black Pope in charge of a religion which has Lucifer as it's god. (You heard it from me...maybe after from your own research...you don't believe it...it does not matter what you believe...they will have their WW3...they will impose a Police State on the world...terrorism is their handy coatpeg.)

In short, we do the terrorism, we blame them, we create a war. We win the war. We write the history books. We jail people who think other than the official story.

I don't need to vote to know 19 bumbling idiots couldn't do a military style hit on the WTC and have 4 buildings collapse, so greatly that they are incinirated while miracously a fully intact passport comes down from the sky showing the world it was this Atta guy.

Yeah right.

Next they will tell you a large giant running from cave to cave with a dialysis machine threatens to blow up the world.

Holy bullspit Batman its the super villian- George Herbert Walker Bush and his trusty sidekick James Slippery Slope Baker

the only conspiracy is how normally smart people believe the conspiracy story that is told by the government. Holy Crap Cakes

KO, fess up.

Who was the lone #1 vote?

ha ha

" The central struggle of the post September 11th period is this: Will we see the world through the prism of the terrorists? Or will we see it through the prism of goodness and generosity demonstrated by the firemen, police, and citizens who risked (and in many cases lost) their lives to save others? It is a battle of fear versus hope. If fear wins, the world will revert to an endless battleground of all against all. We will find ourselves surrounded by people who feel that we must constantly defend ourselves from the dangers lurking at every turn—and this will become self-fulfillingly true. Or we can acknowledge the shadow elements in the world and in ourselves, guard ourselves from danger to the degree that we are able by taking sensible precautions and police actions, but consciously choose to focus our energies on building trust, love, and goodness in the world. And that path will itself be self-fulfilling: the more generosity and open-heartedness we show to the rest of the world, the more it will be reciprocated by others and the safer we will be. The greatest security will not come through armies or counterviolence."

---

As for what happened that day, I'm still trying to figure it out...

I voted 2, they are covering up their incompetence.

I must note that 3 could seem ambiguous. Number 3 could mean that they knew the key details of the plan but deliberately let it happen, or that they knew that something like that was very possible and/or something was likely to happen soon but did nothing through negligence. Since 2 covers incompetence, and I suppose by implication that includes negligence, I would imagine that 3 was meant to cover deliberately allowing 9/11 to happen.

I find it very,very, very, very interesting that as of this minute, we have more people than ever believe the Bush administration was in on it at some point -95 percent in fact. out of the first 20 votes.

right now its 1/6/5/5/3 in the first 20 votes (as these figures might change, wanna document them.)

Just for that alone, something needs to be done to repudiate Bush.
I don't think we ever had such agreement on this board

So 95 percent of the people on this board who voted so far, believe
Bush lied anyway you look at it. There are lies.
Considering this board has so many moderates and some to the right of the line, along with some to the left of the line, and greens and independents, that is a very significant number

This is close to my view too, they had general knowledge and they should have done something, but their failure to do so was out of neligence and incompetence rather than a decision to let the plan proceed. But of course definitively getting to motives and the insides of their heads is probably impossible.

Approx 75% people disagree that Bush masterminded 911.

It appears those who believe Bush, for example, had the jets remote controlled into the towers or that no airliner ever hit the pentagon are in the vast minority here.

I don't remember anyone saying Bush didn't in some way lie about 911 or was wrong to cover it up, though there may be a few clueless people that haven't spoke up yet.

Theory One can be thrown out the door immediately because of the significant and lengthy documentation of warnings. It can't stand up logically, or morally. At best, Theory One is a lame fallback position for Theory Two.

Theory Two, if true, should get (or have gotten) a lot of people thrown out of office on the keisters in a hurry. It's gross incompetence or malfeasance.

Theory Three, if true, is at least criminal negligence of a high order, with severe criminal punishment required.

Theory Four, if true, would subject many people to severe, multiple legal actions, impeachment, charges of treason and murder, and the requisite punishments for same.

Theory Five (whatever that might be) might allow for an escape valve. Was it a sophisticated attack by a foreign enemy? Who might have been capable of such? Well, no one's put forth such a theory yet except, of course, those who feel it was a well-choreographed effort of 19 people.

So if we can exclude theory one, and no one has any theories for Category Five except the version now under scrutiny, then shouldn't we be proceeding with due speed into a thorough investigation?

That was why Kurt Weldon wanted to get the Able Danger program investigated and has been blocked at every turn by DOD. No one however has any appetite to undo or criticize the 911 Commission - but the truth remains that it was incomplete at best, and politically motivated to avoid dealing with certain truths and realities for whatever reason eg. a rubber stamping exercise of whatever the Administration did or did not do.

It seems to me you and jimiray and graham, at the very least, have been almost demanding we all agree with you that the Bush admin masterminded 911 and had ex-CIA-style of people remote conrol the airlines into the WTC and also pulled them down with cutter charges and that maybe a missile hit the Pentagon, and that Cheney is an OODA addict whose capacity for treason and cruelty is beyond measure.

I am shocked to hear you now disavow your embracement of theory 5 now that so many here have shied away from supporting that theory.

I do agree we should have an investigation, because I believe that at least in some small way (and probably ever larger) Bush has lied and covered up what realy happened on 911. The fact he then runs around trying to convince us that Saddam was involved is another treasonous act IMHO.

this is the perfect example

Nowhere in my post do I mention your name at all. It is not about YOU.

Why so defensive?

I am going by the statistics and reporting what the statistis are dryly.
No explanation needed to say this or that.

It says 95 percent of the first 20 votes do not believe the story put forth.
That is what I posted. That is what the stats show. No more, no less.
And that is a number that is compeltley different than the way people felt in 2001 and 2002.

Um, it apears this post of yours (above) is the defensive one.

I was simply making further observations as you did about the vote so far.

Any theory other than what Bushadmin. has put out means what Bush family said is a lie.

It almost doesn't matter what the other theory is.

So, that actually means, what I keep saying

MY NOSE THEORY
If it smells bad, it smells bad and this stiinks is indeed true in 95 percent of the posters minds here

Doesn't matter except to the criminals if its #2,3,4,5

What matters is, #1 is FALSE, A LIE

Everything else is a diversion, a mind game, a wedge issue, a puff of smoke, a lie and means indeed, no matter how many times you put me down personally, that 19 bumbling pilots did not do it as said by Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Pearle, Wolfie,Condie, etc...

Shame on Colin Powell.
YOU ALONE could blow this entire administration sky high, and become a hero forever in time if you spoke out.

It matters very much what the lie is. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it matters to a lot of people. You don't have to agree that it matters, but at the very least this means we aren't all saying the same thing.

Let's stop spinning and just let people vote.

As I have been saying for years now,
If you can break for certainty the notion that Bush doesn't lie to the general public,(say 90 percent of the public) that little thing alone will undo every single thing he has ever done as much as pulling the curtain showed the Wizard of Oz to be a fraud
It didn't matter he was a nice guy, and smart, he was still a fraud.

Then you get to the specifics and what part of the lie was a lie can be learned, and then appropriate steps made, and appropriate people put on trial or impeached or what not.

First we should unite in agreeing that my simpleminded(according to some)
nose test that if it don't smell right it doesn't smell right therefore it stinks is
correct- and then we all could get back to our lives pre 12/12/2000, beause if Bush is complicent in 9-11, then he maliciously preplanned to steal 2000, and more obviously, did pre-plan and steal 2004.

One little lie is all it takes and his house of cards is blown like a gust of wind, where they land, like a mysterious fully intact passport on a beautiful cloudless, sunny day in Sept.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html


Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T) is a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11.
The members of S9/11T are encouraged to take an active role by devoting themselves to reporting the results of research on 9/11 to the nation and the world by means of lectures, articles, and other venues.

S9/11T members are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts contend that books and articles by members and other associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon.

They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.

S9/11T encourages its members to vigorously express their concerns on this score through lectures, conferences, symposia, articles, and books as well as other access routes that publicize their findings.

Founded by professors Jim Fetzer and Steven Jones, S9/11T is devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, "letting the chips fall where they may".

Currently, S9/11T has four categories of members: full members (FM), who have or have had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them. The special category of society associate (SA) exists for others who wish to publicly support the association.

The presently enrolled members of S9/11T are as follows:


Full Members

Kevin Barrett (FM)

Folklore, UW-Madison; Director, Khidria, Inc.; Founding Member, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

Philip J. Berg, Esq. (FM)

Attorney at Law, Former Deputy Attorney General, former candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor, and U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, whose web site, www.911forthetruth.com, covers the RICO lawsuit that is pending against Bush, Cheney and 53 other Defendants in Federal Court, Southern District of New York

Tracy Blevins (FM)

Bioengineering, Rice University
Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
Robert S. Boyer (FM)
Philosophy; Mathematics; Computer Science; University of Texas, Austin

Clare Brandabur (FM)

Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul

Michiel Brumsen (FM)

Philosophy, Engineering ethics

Andreas von Buelow (FM)

Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years

Harriet Cianci (FM)

Tunxis Community College, CT

William A. Cook (FM)

Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy"

Richard Curtis (FM)

Philosophy, Seattle University

Duane M. Davis (FM)

Literary Theory; Modern Literature; Creative Writing; Selkirk College, B.C.

Lloyd DeMause (FM)

Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory

Alexander L. Dent (FM)

Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine

A. K. Dewdney (FM)

Mathematician, Computer Scientist, University of Western Ontario

Albert Dragstedt (FM)

Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary's College, Oakland, CA

Ted Elden (FM)

Architect, Communicator

Jeffrey Farrer (FM)

Physics/ Materials Science, BYU

James H. Fetzer (FM)

Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T

Marcus Ford (FM)

Humanities, NAU

Ruth Frankenberg (FM)

American Studies, Cultural Studies, Author of four books

David Gabbard (FM)

Curriculum & Instruction College of Education East Carolina University

Daniele Ganser (FM)

Historian, Basel University, Switzerland

David Ray Griffin (FM)

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University, Author or editor of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"

Derrick P. Grimmer (FM)

Physics, Alternative energy

David Hawkins (FM)

Forensic economics, Joint-venture enterprise, Management and network design

Bruce R. Henry (FM)

Mathematics, Worcester State College

Timothy Howells (FM)

Computer Science, Medical Software, Akademiska Sjukhuset

Brady L. Hutchison (FM)

American legal history, Constitutional history, Rice University, San Jacinto College South

Dillon K. Inouye (FM)

Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University

Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs (FM)

Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University

Andrew Johnson (FM)

Physics, Computer Science, Software Engineering

Steven Jones (FM)

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum

Michael Keefer (FM)

English and theatre, University of Guelph

Stephen F. LeRoy (FM)

Professor of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara

Davidson Loehr (FM)

Theology; Philosophy of science; Philosophy of religion

Richard McGinn (FM)

Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University

Robert Merrill (FM)

Literature and Humanities; Maryland Institute College of Art; Editor, Maisonneuve Press

Ted Micceri (FM)

Statistical Research, Planning and Analysis, University of South Florida

Michael Morrissey (FM)

English as a Foreign Language, University of Kassel, Germany

John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM)

Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus Elect, University of Guelph, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and the author of six books dealing with public policy issues

Raymond Munro (FM)

Professor of Theatre, Clark University

George Nelson (FM)

Colonel, USAF (retired)

Jesus Nieto (FM)

College of Education, San Diego State University

Daniel Orr (FM)

Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Illinois

Matthew Orr (FM)

Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?"

Peter Phillips (FM)

Sociology Department, Sonoma State University, Global Dominance Research, www.projectcensored.org

Jean-Pierre Petit (FM)

Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering

Diana Ralph (FM)

Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry

Joseph Raso (FM)

Political Science, Comparative and International Politics, State-sponsored terrorism

Paul W. Rea (FM)

Humanities, St. Mary's College, CA, Author of "Still Seeking the Truth about 9/11"

Morgan Reynolds (FM)

Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis

Karen Rice (FM)

Associate Professor, Western Washington University Libraries

David Sprintzen (FM)

Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Long Island Progressive Coalition, Citizen Action of New York

Morgan Stack (FM)

Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland. Co-founder of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement

Webster Griffin Tarpley (FM)

President, Washington Grove Institute Government-sponsored terror

Constance De Vereaux (FM)

Philosophy and political science, Program in Arts Management, Shenandoah University

Lon Waters (FM)

High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory

Carl Weis (FM)

Associate Professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, retired

Richard Welser (FM)

Psychology, Neuropsychology, Philosophy of Science

Judy Wood (FM)

Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University

William Woodward (FM)

Psychology, Political Psychology, University of New Hampshire

Associate Members

Sterling D. Allan (AM)

New Energy Congress, Founder, PES Network, Inc, Executive Director

Garry Anaquod (AM)

Sessional instructor, First Nations University of Canada

James Arft (AM)

America First Party

Victoria Ashley (AM)

Architecture and physiological psychology, 911research.wtc7.net

Gwendolyn Atwood (AM)

Clinical psychologist, Ed.D., Harvard University

Steve Baer (AM)

Solar energy, Manufacturing

David Benson (AM)

Actor; Conspiracy Theories; Edinburgh Fringe Festival

Mark S. Bilk (AM)

Computer programmer; Electronics technician/engineer; http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911

Len Bracken (AM)

Credentialed Journalist
Graduate of GWU's Elliott School of International Affairs
Author of "Shadow Government: 9/11 and State Terror"

Jordan Brewster (AM)

Conspiracies

James Roger Brown (AM)

Director, The Sociology Center; Congressional Evidence Book Author

Fred Burks (AM)

Served for many years as a language interpreter for presidents and other dignitaries.
www.wanttoknow.info/911information

Bill Carlson (AM)

Webmaster, groups.yahoo.com/group/wrh/

Frank Carmen (AM)

Physics Ph.D., BYU

John Cameron (AM)

American politics

Thom Clark (AM)

Registered geologist, Environmental geologist

Muhammad Columbo (AM)

Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience

Judy Cunningham (AM)

Health Education, Counseling and Rehabilitation

Rose Davis (AM)

Publisher, Indian Voices

Steve De'ak (AM)

Network professional

Reynolds Dixon (AM)

Author

Thaddeus Dombrowski (AM)

Mathematics, Computer science, Software engineering

Karel Donk (AM)

Multimedia and Web Design

Eric Douglas (AM)

New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org

Brian Duncan (AM)

Fire Protection Engineering; Art and Creative Director; The Flywire, www.theflywire.com

Curtis T. Dunlap (AM)

Weather forecaster, Global Hawk technology

Gustavo Espada (AM)

Media and Culture, Administrator, Harvard University

Bill Fikes, Jr. (AM)

U.S. Army, Website construction

Alex Floum (AM)

Attorney.

Robert Fritzius (AM)

Electrical Engineering, Radar and telecommunications

Alex L. Funk (AM)

Electronic engineering, Research and development

Patrick Gallagher (AM)

Mechanical engineer

Cathy Garger (AM)

Freelance Writer, Motivational Speaker

Michael Gass (AM)

Air Force Explosive Ordnance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb disposal technician

Russ Gerst (AM)

Mathematics, Certified Public Accountant

Kenyon Gibson (AM)

Former US Naval Intelligence, author of "Common Sense: A Study of the Bushes, the CIA and the Suspicions Regarding 9/11" (2003, in Arabic) and of "Hemp for Victory" (2006)

Gordon Ginn (AM)

Motives behind attack

Sean Glazier (AM)

Software engineering

Rick Guerard (AM)

Journeyman ironworker, Industrial maintenance

Dan Hamburg (AM)

Former US Representative; Author, Headwaters Forest Act; Executive Director, VOTE Action Committee

Jesse Hemingway (AM)

Author of "Friendly Fire on Holy Grounds"

Eric Hermanson (AM)

Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering, Software Architect

James F. Holwell (AM)

Mathematics, Communication

Bryan Houser (AM)

Documentary filmmaker

Ginny Howard (AM)

Systems theory; Classical languages; Structural mathematics

Eric Hufschmid (AM)

Author of "Painful Questions" and "Painful Deceptions"

Richard T. Jeroloman (AM)

International law; Intellectual property; Electronic engineering

Debbie Johnson (AM)

Writer, Editor, Proofreader

Doug Kabourek (AM)

WTC album, Singer and songwriter

Alan Keightley (AM)

Radio, Broadcasting

Jeff Kellogg (AM)

Policy analyst, Environmental issues

Peter Kirsh (AM)

Forensic pathologist

Robert Klassen (AM)

Editor, Freelance writer, Critical care respiratory therapy

Rebecca R. Kline (AM)

Teacher, Journalist

Paul Landis (AM)

Industrial engineering, Author of "A Real 9/11 Commission"

Spero Larres (AM)

Physics and Mathematics, Rutgers University

Frank Legge (AM)

Chemistry, Solar Track Pty Ltd., Logical Systems Consulting

Greg Lemon (AM)

Animation, Simulation, Special Effects

Davidson Loehr (AM)

Minister

Stevan Douglas Looney (AM)

Attorney

Greg Lopreato (AM)

Senior Research Scientist

Regan MacBannon-Mason (AM)

Vocational rehabilitation counseling

Wayne Madsen (AM)

Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist, a former communications security analyst with NSA and a former intelligence officer in the USMC and a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center

Michael Maguire (AM)

Mechanical engineering, Aeronatutical engineering, Prognostic Health Monitoring

Gene Maier (AM)

Corporate controller

Aldwin Marquis (AM)

9/11 Researcher/Activist

David Masdon (AM)

Electrical Engineering

George Marinakis (AM)

Patent attorney

Brad Mayeux (AM)

RF Engineering, 911review.org

David McGowan (AM)

Author and lecturer

Scott Meredith (AM)

Theoretical Linguistics, High technology 21 years

Peter Meyer (AM)

Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, creator of the Serendipity web site (www.serendipity.li) and of the Hermetic Systems web site (www.hermetic.ch)

Paul Andrew Mitchell (AM)

Attorney; Private Investigator

Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk (AM)

Physics and math, Business administration

Aidan Monaghan (AM)

Electronics engineering,
www.explosive911analysis.com

Robert Moore (AM)

Attorney, Member, Connecticut Pro Bono Network

Jeff Moskin (AM)

Private pilot, Electronics engineer, Certified flight instructor

Ted Muga (AM)

Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering

Nicholas Newton (AM)

Astrophysics, Simulation Models

Alfons Olszewski (AM)

Webmaster, www.freedomisforeverybody.org

Ralph Omholt (AM)

Technical writer

Don Paul (AM)

Author of "9/11:Facing Our Fascist State" (2002) and co-author with Jim Hoffman of "9/11: Great Crimes, a Greater Cover-up" (2003) and "Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City" (2004)

Tom Pinto (AM)

Information systems analyst

Joe Plummer (AM)

http://StopTheLie.com

Chris Poate (AM)

Carpenter, Contractor, Cabinetmaker

Benjamin Pritchard (AM)

Software Engineer, 911TruthEmergence.com

Michael Provost (AM)

Independent film maker

Carter W. Rae (AM)

Biology, Chemistry, Dentistry

Craig Ranke (AM)

9/11 researcher/activist

Paul Robins (AM)

Electronics, Aerospace products

Marnia Robinson (AM)

Author; Former corporate attorney

Gordon Ross (AM)

Mechanical engineering, Production engineering

Kevin Ryan (AM)

Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories

Nila Sagedevan (AM)

Pilot, Aeronautical engineer

Daniel Schnizing (AM)

Author

E. Martin Schotz (AM)

Psychiatrist, Citizen Historian

Dave Short (AM)

Volunteer fireman, Emergency medical technician

Rick Siegel (AM)

www.911eyewitness.com
www.911eyewitness.com/truth

Jimmy Smith (AM)

Communications Engineering

Leonard Spencer (AM)

Twin Towers Attack, The Pentagon Attack, www.serendipity.li

Deanna Spingola (AM)

Author/Writer, Renew America, News with Views

Glenn Stanish (AM)

Airline Pilot, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Allied Pilots Association (APA)

Jacob G. Stansbury, Jr. (AM)

FSLIC and FDIC; members.cox.net/damor1/

Stephen M. St. John (AM)

Author, A Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem

Harry Stottle (AM)

Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. IT Director of the Codel Project. Specialist in authentication and related issues.

Soren Stoutner (AM)

Computer Consulting, System Administrator, Technology Specialist

Coco Tralla (AM)

Writer, Speaker, Publisher, Distributor

Paul Tuffery (AM)

Film maker, Videographer, Computer technician

Tom Tvedten (AM)

Family Physician; Medical School instructor; Arkansas 9/11 Truth contact

Diane Verkler (AM)

Art director, Former prosecutor, Background in law

H. Chris Videll (AM)

Accountant, Financial analyst

Brad Waddell (AM)

DVD producer, Question911.com

Jack White (AM)

Photoanalyst

Edgar Williams (AM)

Statistics, Computer Science, Database Management

Larry Winfrey (AM)

Network engineer

Ian Woods (AM)

Publisher and Editor of Global Outlook (the Magazine of 9/11 Truth); president of S.I.F.T. - Skeptics Inquiry For Truth (aka

Have any of these people published any studies or reports any kind relating to 911?

To the contrary, Sunshine... I haven't avowed any theory, or disavowed too many of them. I'm still working on the questions.

I can't disavow Theory #5; I was never there to begin with, and Theory #5 is just some grand catch basin for "everything else" that hasn't already been put forward.

But it is a given with me that the "official story" or the 9/11 Commission explanation of it won't wash. And most of my commentary could probably best be taken as casting doubt on that theory. Aside from that, I haven't really decided terribly much.

I haven't decided if the planes were hijacked, or the hijackers flew the planes, or if some other technology was used. (But two of the four planes clearly had to be flown by something or someone other than a fellow with limited experience and flying time.) It is also very clear to me that remote technologies are within the realm of possibility; I agree that that's not "proof".

I haven't decided what happened at the Pentagon at all, though it's clearer to me now than it was at the beginning of the thread that there are a lot of Pentagon-related theories that seem "full of it". (There are so many of them that it's dizzying.) (And the really dizzying thing is the question as to why such disinformation is being created, and by whom, and with some indications that the government is involved with at least some of that effort at muddying the waters.)

I haven't decided what happened to the towers. The argument for pancake collapse is convincing enough that it deserves more complete attention, though I am not as of this minute convinced. The argument for explosives is very strong and, as noted, someone's put up a cool million for anyone who can prove it wrong. The many, many eyewitness reports of explosions in and around four WTC buildings seems to bear some gravitas. If I have a bias here, it's that I'm incliined to believe the reports of paramedics, cops and firefighters made in the heat of the moment because they have no conceivable reason to confabulate.

I haven't decided what happened out in PA except that there appears to be more evidence for "some other story" than there is for the "offical" one.

There's an awful lot of loose ends, too... all over the place.

As for your first paragraph about me demanding you agree with me on anything:

It's a fair statement to say that I think there is a high degree of complicity somewhere, somehow, if only because there's been such an extensive effort at cover-up, or avoidance of investigation. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think a) or or c) in terms of logistics, technicalities or minutiae. I'm still trying to fit all those pieces into some kind of coherent picture. (As for the OODA loop thing, I'm still stuck in the orientation phase.)

But I don't demand that anyone agree with me about anything except one tiny little point: that the overwhelming and considered opinions of many experts and many citizens is that we need to re-open the investigation formally.

If I get to that agreement by arguing beyond that point through a method of questions, well, at least I've maybe moved a few people to action on that point.

Full and final conclusions will demand amore rigorous test than I alone can mount.
You, on the other hand, seem to demand "proof" withinthe thread. At best, all we might be able to do is to mount a convincing argument for further legal exploration of certain points or the whole.

Furthermore, as I noted in the 9/11 thread on several occasions, I think it is only through such a deep and thorough investigation that the American people can come to terms with what has happened, and is happening, in this great nation that is on the brink. If intelligence failures, 9/11, Katrina, the strategic prosecution of the war, homeland security and other matters are to be judged solely as incompetence, I don't think the nation can afford another two weeks of such incompetence.

So if we can exclude theory one, and no one can create a meaningful exculpatory possibility in theory five, then the three remaining theories all demand either political or criminal investigation and prosecution.

If there is agreement on that, what are we all going to do about it?

I've already signed with my legal name and address every petition for investigation and impeachment I can find.

And, we have 90-something % of Americans who don't believe ANYTHING that dubya says. What are we gonna do about that? We know he lied about Iraq and Katrina, we think he lied about 9-11 and Plame, and nothing is happening, still???

What's wrong with this picture?

Sunshine, somewhere back in that very long thread I started a month ago, you said that you were a serious "student" of the topic, having looked at a lot of the films and articles and web sites.

As such, you should be able to recognize at least five of those names, perhaps ten, maybe as many as fifteen who have "published", written, collated, or created films, or web sites, or written books.

Go back and read the list. Try to slow down this time and see if you can actually absorb some of what passes in front of your eyes.

If you do so, you will recognize that you have been arguing with one of those people right here in the 9/11 thread on CGCS.

I think he was so moved by the experience that he decided to contribute his obvious expertise, for which he gets a tip of my cap.

You are right about the "demand" part of my post. So I should attribute that to graham and hereby apologize to you on this count.

However, your postings on the 911 thread indicate you are a faithful parrot of any and all of the extreme 911 theories, and you haven't put too much effort into hiliting the various and obvious flaws of such theories. I think that tends to make people who read that thread think you support the idea that the bush admin masterminded 911. At least that's what I thought.

Anyway, I am happy that you have clarified your stance here on this poll. I agree a serious investigation is warrented and needed.

You assume I have a good memory for names and dates and such.

I don't.

It's even hard for me to keep track of people's gender here on CGCS. I tend to let a person's handle indicate to me whether someone is a boy or a girl. I was happy to note that many others have that same problem.

And except for certain people or profound statements they have made, I can't remember who said what (which is another reason I don't dwell on the personal, though yet another reason I don't do so is that too many people will try to use any personal info they find out about you as a weapon if they can).

I don't remember the exact words I chose. But I'm not sure I would say I am a "serious student". I am highly interested in finding out the truth though, and I have indeed spent lots and lots of hours reading and watching videos. Not as many as you or jimiray though.

I am serious enough that sometimes I am tempted to move to NYC and do some serious research, interview as many first-hand 911 witnesses as possible, and publish my findings. My recent participation on the 911 thread, though, sort of quashed that fantasy idea. I don't think people are open-minded enough to accept common sense, and instead they latch onto the glorious mysteries of what may have happened instead of the boring truth (not that I know the truth).

Things are rapidly changing. A year ago, the most common word used to describe GWB was "honest." today the most common words are "idiot" and "liar." IMHO, He jumped the shark after Hurricane Katrina, and it is all downhill from here on out. Everybody get out and push!

You had a kneption that I didn't know....


Remember this date

12/12/2000
the day it officially all started.

If your #1 is false, then everything the administration said is suspect.

We need a real official investigation NOW or when he is out of office.
And we need real legal power to judge it.

With real charges filed if warranted at that point.
NO PARDONS

I don't know why the republicans don't want this? In the end, it is in their interest


BTW-NEW YORK MAG. MARCH 27, cover major article on 9-11 theory, with photos
and arg. I just got it, have not read it, don't know where it leads...but it is a major New York publication, and it means this is expanding into the main stream media

While NY is NY, NY is where it happened...on 9/11/12 New York was with Bush on it...NOW that lies about 9-11 are filtering through...


that is why they are fighting so hard to mock Russ about censure on the taps, one bad thing starts a SLIPPERY SLOPE downward, this time for the Bushfamily...
and their despeate attempt to keep it bottled up...

like a levee with water rushing at it, and just a piece of bubble gum ...IRONIC AIN'T IT???

Magmak, you post a lot of extended quotation posts, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I think it would be helpful if you prefaced your posts by stating whether you agree, disagree or are unsure about what follows. Sometimes you do seem to agree with what you are posting and sometimes you don't, but I have very hard time telling which is which. Even if you may have stated your position before, it doesn't hurt to keep repeating it when a thread runs to 1200+ posts because other people can easily forget what you said before, or if they remember, conclude that you are contradicting yourself.

Sunshine - If you go to their website you might find their list of references and studies including the below and you will have to go to the link to access the documents:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Resources.html


Home page

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Resources


This section will include documents, records, and studies related to the investigation of 9/11, which we believe may be helpful to students working on this case.
We do not necessarily endorse or concur with conclusions or opinions expressed here, but we think that they provide suggestive and stimulating resources for further contemplation.

Anyone with suggestions for additions to this section is encouraged to contact Steve Jones (steven_jones@byu.edu) or Jim Fetzer (jfetzer@d.umn.edu). We will appreciate hearing from you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not so recent events
1 February 2006
K-TALK (radio) Barbara Jean's 1-2:30 PM/CT interview with James Fetzer
Click here for the archived interview
1 February 2006
Seminar: "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions", by Prof. Steven E. Jones
Click here for the archived interview

A front row seat at Professor Jones' talk
2 Feb 2006, gnn.tv

Reports and summaries of Professor Jones' talk

Steven Jones Blows the Roof off a Utah Auditorium

Netxnews coverage of Steve Jones' presentation

3 February 2006
"Air America" (radio) 10-10:30 AM/CT interview with James H. Fetzer
Click here for the archived interview

3 February 2006
"Another WorldView Is Possible" (radio) 7:00-8:00 PM/PT interview with James H. Fetzer
Click here and scroll down for the interview

13 February 2006
"WING-TV" (internet broadcast) 1-1:30 PM/CT interview with James H. Fetzer
Click here for the archived interview (easier access late evenings and early mornings)

14 February 2006
"TvNewsLIES" (Monks Media Radio Network) 11:15 AM-1 PM/CT interview with James H. Fetzer
Click here for the archived interview

15 February 2006
"Radioactive Radio" 8-10:00 PM/PT interview with James H. Fetzer
Click here for the archived interview

20 February 2006
"The Investigative Journal" (radio) 3-4:00 PM/CT interview with James H. Fetzer
Click here for the archived interview

22 February 2006
"Air America" Mike Malloy (radio) 10:30-11:30 PM/ET interview with David Ray Griffin
Click here for the archived interview

23-24 February 2006
"Coast to Coast AM" (radio) 11 PM-2 AM/PT interview of James H. Fetzer (with David Ray Griffin and Morgan Reynolds)
Click here for the archived interview

WING-TV calls program "an historic event"! Click here for their article. And click here for a report on their participation in this program.

25 February 2006
"An Inside Job" (EP PODCAST), an interview with James H. Fetzer
by George Kenney
Click here


Not so recent news

Pillar to press: Don't get fooled again
27 Feb 2006, Paul R. Pillar
Judicial Watch sues DoD for Videos of Pentagon Attack
26 Feb 2006, 9/11 Citizens Watch

Bush, Rats & a Sinking Ship
25 Feb 2006, ConsortiumNews.com, Robert Parry

Corporate Control of Ports is the Problem
23 Feb 2006, The Nation, John Nichols

World Trade Center Building 7 demands tenacious public scrutiny
23 Feb 2006, The Muckraker Report, Ed Haas

The birth and life of the "9-11 Truth movement"
21 Feb 2006, by Jarrett Murphy, Village Voice

Sept. 11 Toxic Heart Shock
19 Feb 2006, www.nypost.com

A Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask
18-19 Feb 2006, Counterpunch

Sept. 11 theorizing professor speaks out
17 Feb 2006, Daily Herald

A surge in whistle-blowing ... and reprisals
16 Feb 2006, By Gail Russell Chaddock

Outsmart the Bad Guys
12 Feb 06, George Washington's Blog

Paul Craig Roberts / Who will save America?
6 Feb 2006, Counterpunch

How Did the WTC Towers Drop so Easily?
4 Feb 2006, News Focus

Supporting the President
2 Feb 2006, George Washington's Blog

Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says
2 Feb 2006, Daily Herald

9/11 Attacks: Avoiding the Hard Questions
1 Feb 2006, Miami Herald

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
30 Jan 2006, Yahoo News story
30 Jan 2006, Daily Kos (with a rolling forum)

Deseret Morning News reports on Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
28 Jan 2006, Deseret Morning News

Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11
27 Jan 2006, Daily Kos (with a poll)

Deseret Morning News reports on upcoming paper by Professor Jones:
10 Nov 2005, Deseret Morning News


Pentagon Photographs

Pentagon Photo #1:

For more photographs:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html
Pentagon Photo #2:

For more photographs:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/crash_site.htm
Pentagon Photo #3 (a composite of 2 photos):


What hit the Pentagon?
An Analysis.

NOTE: What hit the Pentagon has turned out to be among the most, if not the most, contentious problems in 9/11 research. Even the founders of S9/11T tend toward different answers to this question. The photos and analysis presented here are merely intended to offer stimulation for further thoughts about this issue and are in no way supposed to provide a definitive resolution of this tricky problem. Additional Pentagon studies may be found at batcave.net, 911review rumor, 911review noplane, rense.enginestory, saunalahti.fi, and a Flash video about the Pentagon hit. Additional data and links on the possible use of an A-3 Sky Warrior.

Records

WTC seismic data records
From Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
NOTE: Not to dispute the value of these siesmic records, when the authors state, "We understand from news reports that the first impact (0846 EDT) resulted in the second collapse (1028 EDT), and the second impact (0903 EDT) resulted in the first collapse (0959 EDT)", they are imposing a causal connection that might not obtain. The temporal relations hold, since WTC1, hit first, fell second, and WTC2, hit second, fell first, so it would be more accurate to assert, "The first impact (0846 EDT) was followed by the second collapse (1028 EDT), and the second impact (0903 EDT) by the first collapse (0959 EDT)", but not that either collapse was a "result" of the impacts that preceded them. Indeed, even to assume that these effects were brought about by "impacts" or by "collapses" is to go beyond the evidence that the seismic records themselves provide by drawing inferences as to their causation.


Little Lies

Secret Service agents say Cheney was drunk when he shot lawyer
22 Feb 2006, Capitol Hill Blue, Doug Thompson
Scientific Proof Cheney's Shooting Story A Lie
16 Feb 2006, Alex Jones' Infowars


Medium Lies
How to precisely measure cell phone signal strength
3 Feb 2006, e-mail from Nigel Dyson-Hudson
Could Cell Phone Calls Have Been Made From The "Hijacked" Jetliners?
30 Jan 2006, e-mail from Nila Sagadevan

Cell phone calls in flight?
9 Dec 2004, CNN/Money, Chris Isidore

Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" from Flight 77
by Joe Vialls

Cell phone tests from airborne locations
2 Feb 2006, at ebicom.net

Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners
July 2003, Germar Rudolf

Cell phones on flights - No Way!
10 Feb 2006, e-mail from anonymous

Study Warns Cell Phones Could Cause Airliner Crash
1 Mar 2006, consumeraffairs.com

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
23 Sept 2001, BBC News

Many of the 9/11 "hijackers" are still alive
6 Dec 2002, thunderbay.indymedia

Could these guys have even flown the planes?
5 Feb 2006, e-mail from Nila Sagadevan

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft without Training
21 Feb 2006, Nila Sagadevan

Was Hani Hanjour caught on video at Dulles or not?
18 Feb 2006, anonymous

Was Hani Hajour piloting the plane?
15 Feb 2006, George Washington's blog

AA Flight 77: Active FOIA Lawsuit
by Bronco Bingham

Autopsy Lists: No Arabs on Flight 77
8 Feb 2006, e-mail from Nila Sagadevan

A Line in the Pentagon Grass
6-9 Oct 2003, Ward Schmidt and John Judge

Did United Flight 93 land in Cleveland?
11 Sep 2001 news article from WCPO-TV in Cincinnati, Ohio

Was United Airlines Flight 93 Shot Down?
A collection of articles

Where is the Wreckage of United Flight 93?
15 Feb 2006, ChristopherBollyn

Were the planes swapped?
19 Mar 2006, 9/11 Team 8+

Evidence Destruction
23 Feb 2006, Nila Sagadevan

What hit the South Tower?
by Robert Rice

The "planes" were real
22 Mar 2006, John Austin

The North Tower coming down under controlled demolition
Video clips of the destruction of the floors

World Trade Center Photos, 13 September 2001
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

Apparent use of a military Boeing 767 on the South Tower
Photos of what appears to be a military tanker

2 say they found 9/11 'black boxes'
28 Oct 2004, Philadelphia Daily News, by William Bunch

EMT at WTC on 9/11 describes what happened to her
10 Feb 2006, Patricia Ondrovic

Thermite and spoliation of evidence at Ground Zero
10 Mar 2006, David Hawkins, Foundation Scholar - Cambridge

Citigroup-AMEC 9/11 insurance fraud on Lloyd's of London?
by David Hawkins, Foundation Scholar, Cambridge University

WTC designed to survive impacts greater than a Boeing 767
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
28 Sept 2005, Eric Salter


A CONTROVERSIAL STUDY
We have some holes in the plane stories
by Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.
Because this study has provoked considerable interest about its significance in relation to the society, we post here a response to a recent inquiry by Kevin Hall about a commentary from WING TV. His e-mail to me is posted below. In my opinion, this is a brilliant piece that raises serious questions, not only about Shanksville and the Pentagon but about what hit the Twin Towers. Morgan's analysis of the Pentagon is devastating, where he makes a powerful case that whatever hit the building cannot have been a Boeing 757. He and I are in complete agreement here, as many of you no doubt will already know. I also agree that the Shanksville crash scene appears to have been contrived as a Hollywood-style prop. I have had many reports from residents of the area telling me that there had been an explosion in the air, but the FBI wouldn't even write it down! The argument he presents about the Twin Towers is quite fascinating, but it's evaluation lies beyond my present competence. I look forward to an extended analysis of the evidence to determine whether or not the conclusions he draws are well-founded or not. Without prejudging this matter, I also welcome his rejection of the holographic hypothesis, which, I agree, cannot possibly be correct.

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:49:14 -0600
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Reply-To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: WING TV: Sabotage Warning...
To: Kev Hall <kevcross7@msn.com>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Kev,

The society and its members stand in an non-symmetrical relationship, insofar as, while the members support the positions of the society, the society does not therefore support the positions of its members. This is a nice case that illustrates this difference. The society does not endorse Morgan's position, but does not restrict his freedom of research. The questions that are raised in this piece by Victor Thorn raise real issues about the potential for abuse by others whose agenda may not be dominated by the search for truth about 9/11. So I share those concerns and appreciate why he has raised them. Personally, I have no doubt that large aircraft hit the towers, although I would acknowledge that there are questions about them that have not yet been resolved (as to their precise characteristics, military or civilian versions of 767s, and so forth). Morgan holds a minority view on this matter, but in a society of scholars, it is important that a wide range of alternative positions should be explored. His piece does not represent an endorsement by S9/11T but only reflects one line of research that one of our members happens to be pursuing. I disagree with Morgan and believe he is wrong, but that is no reason to axe him or to condemn his research. I would expect additional research to show that he is mistaken about this and that he will eventually conclude the same, which is typical of the tendency of scientific inquiry to be self-correcting. As for the misuse of his research by others, that is a predictable practice by those who would mislead and is something that we should all publicly condemn.

Jim

Quoting Kev Hall <kevcross7@msn.com>:

> Quick comments?
> http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/noplaners.html


“Terrorist Alerts”

Thinking Out Loud
17 Feb 2006, anonymous
Webster Tarpley / "Synthetic Terror" Alerts
10 Feb 2006, rense.com

Webster Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror" best seller
21 Feb 2006, emediawire

Another Nuke Exercise: Your Next 9/11?
24 Jan 2006, Online Journal, Jerry Mazza

Houston Running Nuclear Disaster Drills
26 Jan 2006, arcticbeacon.com, Greg Syzmanski

War Gaming over Super Sunday
4 Feb 2006, David Hawkins

Pentagon to research nuclear fallout from terrorist attacks on USA
2 Feb 2006, Reuters

Mosque Bombings in Iraq: Who benefits?
24 Feb 2006, Dahr Jamail

Sorting out the Mosque Bombing Mess
25 February 2006, Anonymous

Who Will Blow the Whistle Before We Attack Iran?
18 Feb 2006, Ray McGovern

The Planned Assault on Iran
15 Feb 2006, Michael Keefer

Battle Plan for Iran: The Khuzestan Gambit
23 Feb 2006, Daily Kos, Sherlock Google

The End of Dollar Hegemony
15 Feb 2006, Hon. Ron Paul of Texas

Possible Detroit "Super Bowl" Terrorist Attack?
30 Jan 2006, e-mail message

The US military's plans for an information war
27 Jan 2006, BBC news report

Security for Super Bowl Called into Question
27 Jan 2006 news item

Homeland Insecurity: Terror alerts manufactured?
4 Jan 2006, at World Net Daily

'93 WTC attack and '95 Oklahoma Bombing
25 Feb 2006, e-mail message

Shades of 9/11 All Over Again
22 Feb 2006, SF Bay View, Cathy Garger

Clearing the Baffles for 9/11
1 Oct 05, The Wayne Madsen Report


Thoughts

Operation Mockingbird
by Mary Louise
Who controls the media?
by Alex Constantine

TIA Lives On
23 Feb 2006 Shane Harris

Operation Northwoods
17 Dec 2001, by William Douglas

About 'False Flag' Operations
28 Dec 2005, at georgewashington.blogspot.com

Treason in Wartime (documents)
Compiled by John McCarthy

Declassification in Reverse
21 Feb 2001, The National Security Archive

This level of secrecy is ridiculous
30 Dec 2004, WantoKnow.info, Fred Burks

Mind Control in the 21st Century
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt

Disinformation: Video-rewrite (I)
http://mrl.nyu.edu/~bregler/videorewrite

Disinformation: Video-rewrite (II)
http://mrl.nyu.edu/~bregler/videorewrite/f...-forestgump.mov

The Story Leading to 9/11
3 Mar 2006, Alan Keightley

Remembering September 11th 2001
By Dan Ernest

The 9/11 signs point to a conspiracy
4 Mar 2006, Herald-Mail, Washington Country, MD, by L. Simons

Cheney recalls taking charge from bunker
11 Sept 2002, CNN.com

"War Games" by the US military on 9/11
Paralysis of air defenses to ensure success of attacks?

Notes on Nationalism (and the suppression of inconvenient facts)
by George Orwell

Losing the Information Battle: National and Homeland Security
20 Mar 2006, washingtonpost.com, William M. Arkin

Too hot to handle/The new Iron Curtain
21 Mar 2006, John Kaminski

Ancient History is not so Ancient
Amy Goodman interviews Michael Parenti

Kennedy, Vietnam and Iraq
James K. Galbraith

Nuclear Hypocrisy
8 Mar 2006, Malcom Lagauche

Stranger than Fiction
27 Sept 2003 Albert D. Pastore, Ph.D.

Were Israeli spies involved in 9/11?
23 Dec 2001, EIR, Jeffrey Steinberg and Edward Spannaus

What really happened during Bush's "missing hours"?
16 Dec 2001, at www.telegraph.co.uk

Osama bin Laden--Evil Supergenius?
16 Nov 2005, at briandeford.blogspot.com

U.S. Business and Bush Family ties to Osama bin Laden
22 Aug 2005, Wayne Madsen Report (WMR)

MindBox mortgage fraud and racketeering of 9/11 Commission?
22 Mar 2006, David Hawkins

Michael Chertoff: The Master of Disaster
15 September 2005, Christopher Bollyn

Purposeful genocide deserves impeachment
15 Feb 2006, Cathy Garger

What it means to be a Republican
19 Feb 2006, Larry Beinhart

Ports and Missing Money: A Letter to Congress
23 Feb 2006, Anonymous

John Perkins / Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
http://www.johnperkins.org/

European Media Deliberately Provokes Muslims
4 Feb 2006, by Christopher Bollyn

The Global Dominance Group: Background to 9/11
A PDF file from pojectcensored.org

NORAD's 9/11 press release is self-incriminating
13 Oct 2004 By Evan Ravitz

More on 9/11 Insider Trading
17 Feb 2006, Nila Sagadevan

List of World Trade Center Tenants
CNN.com

The Stanley Hilton Lawsuit against Bush et al.
At 911review.org

Background on the Stanley Hilton lawsuit
At wikipedia


Matt Orr's 'Short Course'
Introduction
About This Course
Week 1) Peak Oil
Week 2) Precedents
Week 3) Creating Al Qaeda
Week 4) Foreign Warnings
Week 5) The Alleged Hijackers
Week 6) The Military Absence on 9/11
Week 7) Movie Intermission
Week 8) The Anthrax Attacks

An Historical Speculation

A Trail in Absentia: 9/11 Commission vs. 19 Muslims
MS Word document by Gary Wenkle Smith

Point well taken, Phoenix. And I've been called on it before, elsewhere, here, who knows where...

It's a reasonable assumption that if I post something, I'm in agreement with it... not always, but it's a reasonable assumption a reader who doesn't know me could make...

Partly it's my style... we tend to learn from others, particularly where a good clarification or insight is put forth. I'm not going to change and become a Bush fan overnight, but I might learn a nuance or subtlety I hadn't seen, or gain some respect for a position, or a poster who responds effectively.

I also tend to ask a lot of questions... and I'll admit to playing a game once in a while, with tongue slightly in cheek, to see how others react...

and in something of this complexity and magnitude, I'm not sure I want to rush to judgment... and there is a lot of inherent contradiction in this entire topic... nothing seems to want to align with anything else real easily.

But you have fairly stated a good and sound point that I should apply more frequently and regularly, if not always....

But I'll be more clear in the future.

I'm pushing, I'm pushing!!! Let's all pray that his boat won't float!