The Sheeple Analyst: 9-11, Conspiracy and the Illuminati

Mr. Sheeple:

"What really happened here, I think, is President Clinton's greatest mistake was Monica Lewinsky," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told "Fox News Sunday." NewsMax

Sheeple Analyst:

"And that forced him to take his eye off the ball. He lost the ability to lead the nation to take some of the action that [White House terrorism czar Richard] Clarke was suggesting."

Biden said the Bush administration's biggest mistake was focusing on a national missile defense instead of al Qaeda.

Notice how YOUR eye has been forced off the ball. You neglected to quote the part in which Biden was holding up Clarke's suggested actions as a worthy enterprise. How could you drop the message to obtain the propaganda for your ideology? It's seems as though your mind clicks off once you have found the support for your ideology. Truth has no place in your mind unless it supports your ideology. To you truth is just so much shit getting in the way of what you WISH to believe.

Then you omit mention of the point of Biden's comment: Clinton made his mistakes and Bush made his. Of course, Biden is a Zionist on the Democratic side and is not worthy of much attention, anyway.

Mr. Sheeple:

A timeline of events chronicled in the Starr Report shows that during the period of late January through March 1996, Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was then at its most intense.

NewsMax

Sheeple Analyst:

Here we go again, old farts lusting after lascivious imaginings of sex with young women. From the behind-the- scenes information available to you on my website you would discover that Bill Clinton was a regular participant in sexual adventures with young women, young men and boys. Monica would hardly be a blip on his dipstick. Sexual play for Bush, Reagan, Robert Byrd, Clinton and other Project Monarch handlers is a casual, mundane event that would hardly cause a 10 minute pause in the daily routine.

Find a legitimate procedure for getting excited; don't use the limpid excuse of defending your ideology. This is just more of the Tutti-Fruiti Express nonsense propagandists use to distract sheeple from discovering the truth. Can't handle facing the world head on so the sheeple jump into their toy train and tootle around the same old boring track with fake trees, fake villages, fake roads, fake tunnels, fake grass, fake cars, fake farms, and more and more of the same illusions repeated to create a fake reality. And miss the real thing where the real experiences can be found and where spirit can mature.

Mr. Sheeple:
You scoffed some months ago when I sent you a report about the 15 ships bin Laden had purchased. One of these days, your scoffing will stop when the ships laden with explosives creates another attack in some port or used to sink cargo and cruise ships.
The owner of a diving school near Kuala Lumpur has recently reported a number of ethnic Malays wanting to learn about diving, but being strangely uninterested in learning about decompression. (Just as Moussaoui and others of "middle Eastern descent wanted to learn about 'flying large jets' but not interested in takeoff and landing; presumably planning to hijack jets already airborne and crash rather than land, and divers carrying explosives and interested in diving under ships as suicide bombers. If Middle Eastern students at flight schools were not interested in taking off and landing large planes, what was their objective? Certainly not commercial aviation where take off and landing are the most crucial element of flying huge jets.
Aegis' intelligence has turned up links between big criminal gangs in the area and terrorists, driven by the need for the latter to finance their operations. There have been at least 10 cases of pirates stealing tugs for no apparent reason. The concern is that they are to tow a hijacked tanker into a busy international port. On Sept. 16, 2001, the United States closed the port of Boston, fearing terrorists would attack the gas terminal in the port. To this day, gas tankers bound for Boston have to be escorted by the Coast Guard from hundreds of miles outside port.

G2B reported two weeks ago that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network has purchased at least 15 ships in the last two years.

WorldNetDaily Al-Qaida plans high-sea terror

Sheeple Analyst: This should guarantee only that there will be more false flag operations. They work very well to manipulate and frighten the sheeple. Since there is far more evidence of bin Laden as an asset of the US CIA, and far more use of "al Qaeda" as a false flag operation by the Mossad, there is little doubt that these illusions will be used again. Scoff? Only at your stupidity for being constantly flim-flammed and proud of it. I don't scoff at the use of "bin Laden" as a bogeyman and "al Qaeda" as a tool of world conquest by the New World Order. I've been telling YOU about that for a long time and you just scoff. Sending Arabs to flight schools to fly Boeing 767's by flying Cessnas is their way of making fun of the buffoons who think that such a simple skill is readily transferable to the highly sophisticated technology and difficulties of scale is reasonable. Living like a cartoon of real life is the fate of those who fall for the demonic

Mr. Sheeple: Perhaps it is now time for you to do your "homework". Many flight schools do not only teach "how to fly Cessnas", as you naively assume. Although learning to fly begins with small planes, but they graduate to multi-engine aircraft after a specified number of hours of flying, then go to small jet aircraft and finally qualify for 767s as with all pilots flying large jets. How do I know? I know someone who is a flight instructor and a commercial pilot. And, a friend of mine who died a couple of years ago was a retired airline pilot who flew 747s for United.
"Boeing 767's by flying Cessnas is their way of making fun of the buffoons who think that such a simple skill is readily transferrable to the highly sophisticated technology and difficulties of scale is "

Sheeple Analyst: The closest those "Arab flight students" got to any jet was a time or two in a simulator. Check out your naive assumptions before you mouth off. It just makes you look dumber than a post. Of course, they teach people to fly jets in flight schools, but they didn't teach jets to the "Arab" students. DO SOME HONEST RESEARCH BEFORE YOU REPLY. I AM BORED WITH YOUR IGNORANCE AND DISGUSTED BY YOUR STUPIDITY!

Mr. Sheeple:
Ahhhh! Your aircraft ignorance is showing again; All jet airliner pilots learn their craft in simulators that exist in many flight schools for that very purpose.....training pilots. Time at the controls of real aircraft is for a "check flight" where an experienced pilot checks out the novice pilot who was trained in the simulator that is computer controlled with videos in place of windows in a cockpit containing all the insturments and controls of a real plane. A cockpit that is moved on huge hydraulic rams to simulate virtually every flight condition and/or emergency to test their reaction. If he or she fails the check ride, it is more time in the simulator! In fact, the simulator training is the next step toward flying 767s and other large aircraft after starting out in light planes (whether at the AF academy or private flight schools), graduating to multi-engine, then corporate jets and then application is accepted after a number of required flight hours to learn 767 flying in a simulator before going on a check flight. Multi-million dollar flight simulators are for flight training, not for playing around at flying!!!!!

How do I know that? The retired United Airlines pilot friend, since deceased, was in charge of pilot training after required retirement at age 60, and was in charge of the training at United Airline's facility at the old Stapleton Airport location in Denver. Over coffee at a local MacDonalds, he told me all about it. I tried to get a tour, but that was against the rules.

Also, another acquaintance of mine is a corporate pilot based at Jefferson County airport outside Broomfield and flies Lear jets and others. He overheard me talking to a friend of mine concerning model railroading, and he had me come up to their headquarters and fix an HO model railroad problem the corporate owner had (also Lionel) above the hangar office on the second floor. He explained to me how he got into flying and his experiences. He spent a lot of time in a simulator as a prerequisite to getting at the controls of a real aircraft.

Sheeple Analyst: Nooooo, oooooh daffy dickie duck. The flight school at Venice Airport did not have a flight simulator and the evidence is that a few of the misnamed flight students had very little experience on a flight simulator....like once. Would twice on a simulator make you a certifiable commercial pilot of a heavy? Many commercial pilots work their way up flying smaller commuter craft, cargo flights, and as their proficiency and their experience increases they might be deemed ready for the heavies. Don't be silly trying to convince me that a few classes in a flight school, a few hours on a simulator is enough to successfully maneuver a heavy with the skills shown by the flights of 175 and 77.

I had never suggested that flight simulators were playthings. What a silly imagination you have to make up such a legend in your own mind..

Lastly, you proved my point once again. Thank you. You said, "He spent a lot of time in a simulator as a prerequisite to getting at the controls of a real aircraft." That is exactly my point! The flight students DIDN'T have such training. They could hardly fly Cessnas.

It's also strange that the FBI confiscated all the records of the flight school and that has not seen the light of day in 2 1/2 years, just like the disappearance of other forensic evidence like the steel of the WTC.

Mr. Sheeple sent: Perhaps you need to contact Dr. Allawi who may know more of the facts than you do. NewsMax.com Inside Cover Story

Plainly miffed that Dr. Allawi hadn't accepted the U.S. media's attempt to cover-up links between Saddam, al Qaida and 9/11, Brokaw reprimanded him as cameras rolled:

"Prime minister, I'm surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaida."

But Dr. Allawi refused to back down, telling the top TV anchor:

"No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September atrocities or not, I can't vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists."

Sheeple Analyst: Facts? What facts? "I believe very strongly." Is THAT a fact? ".whether he is directly connected to the September atrocities or not, I can't vouch for this." Is that a proof of a link to al Qaeda? Strong opinion or belief is not proof.

The people of Iraq know Dr. Allawi as a CIA asset, a former associate of Saddam Hussein. They know that, like the Iraq Governing Council, Allawi had been installed by the occupying forces, a puppet of the United States. What then would you expect of such a man....truth? You listened to Chalabi through the mouths of Perle, Veith, Rice, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Bush..... and got lies.

The mobile labs finally identified as hydrogen generators for artillery balloons. The Nigerian yellow-cake fraud exposed to the derisive chortling of the rest of the world. Colin Powell embarrassed himself before the UN with "proof " that was not proof and rationale that was without basis in fact. The' Bush Liars' Club has become the laughing stock of the world and the American sheeple are seen as hopelessly muddled and ignorant.

To save face you must make excuses and rationalizations: "Well, they are in ships sailing about the seas." "The Iraqi WMD is now in Syria." "The Iraqi WMD is in Iran." "Well, they were thinking about it!" "Nigeria has oil; THEY must have Saddam's WMD!" 15 months later and still no REAL evidence. Dr. Allawi just says so. You cannot let the REAL truth show you how gullible you have been so there is always whining and babbling and raging when I point out the inconsistencies, lack of evidence, lack of logic.

I've watched you grasp at any straw to save your precious ideology. Why not make your ideology the unfettered search for truth no matter the cost? Such allegiance to an ideology and an authority typically stems from one's childhood in which something stopped the normal development of a fully functioning adult. Such sheeple need authority figures to provide them assurances and security in a world that frightens them into submission as a feudal serf. There is a way out, but you prefer the comfort of your chosen ideology and favored icons. Truth is an inconvenience in such a world.

Now you are salivating over the words of another liar like a little puppy. You haven't even proved al Qaeda exists but for covert actions of Mossad. Israelis pretending to be Arabs tried to set up an al Qaeda cell in Palestine and got caught. Israelis pretending to be Arabs have been involved in many covert actions that lead silly sheeple to believe that the perpetrators are Arabs of al Qaeda.

You think I am any more interested in Allawi's "facts" than I was in Chalabi's?

You know that we told you before! But you didn't hear us then!
So you still question why.
You didn't listen again!

You don't get something for nothing, you won't get freedom for free. You won't get wise with the sleep still in your eyes, no matter what your dreams might be....

Neal Peert (Rush) says it well

Mr. Sheeple: Even Newsweek, an establishment media often critical of Bush and pro-liberal Democrat, disputes Moore's allegation that reflects your past allegations in your emails when you asserted that Bush was in cahoots with the Saudis via the Carlyle group. How do you now explain this? Rationalize this claim as "lies", but accepting other Newsweek "establishment media" comments opposing Bush but fitting in with your views?

A central theme of Michael Moore's controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a bare allegation that Saudi Arabian interests provided $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush.

However, as a special Newsweek investigative report notes, there is really less - not more - than meets the eye re the dramatic Moore claim: Newsweek Moore Distorted Bush Saudi Ties.

Sheeple Analyst: I guess you just needed someone to yell at and you figured that I would be an advocate of Michael Moore or his movie. I came out against Michael Moore with his support for General Wesley Clark nearly a year ago. I've written you about my differences with the Moore take on 9-11 over a month ago and identified those who babble about al-Qaeda and Arab terrorists, such as Richard Clarke and Sibel Edmonds, as disinformationists. Michael Moore actually supports, wittingly or not, the next wave of aggression after Iran and Syria, which will be directed toward Saudi Arabia. Broadly, he supports aggression against Muslim nations, perhaps without intending this.

I'm hardly what you could reasonably call pro-liberal or pro-Democrat since those positions typically are following the Al-Qaeda and Arab hijacker line slavishly. I won't tolerate either Tweedledee or Tweedledum propaganda.

So why all the tooting and whistling? Are you afraid your Daddy authority figure might be attacked and you would lose your security and protection?

Take your Michael Moore polemics elsewhere. I've already shown that Michael and I are not political brothers. I've been expressing my differences with him long enough that you should have noticed the differences. I do not accept that there were Arab terrorists aboard Flights 11, 175, 93 and 77 since that has never been proven and ample evidence proves the null hypothesis. It has also not been proven that the above mentioned flights were directly involved in crashes at the WTC and Pentagon. Therefore, the entire line of investigation into 9-11 is taken into an examination of a False Flag Operation intended to do just what Michael Moore is doing with Fahrenheit 9-11: direct attention toward Muslims and specifically Arabs. Therefore all the talk about bin Laden, Saudis, Carlyle, etc is a misdirection. I'm not fooled by the propaganda ploy.

I was caught by the Saudi misdirection at first but began to see a pattern developing that was obviously a slick propaganda trick...and I've been telling you about that for a long time. You've forgotten,,,, or was there so much partisan noise in your head that you couldn't hear what I was saying...or didn't read for comprehension?

Jeez, you get excited with all the partisan blockheads screaming at each other that you figure you ought to scream at someone, too. Wake up and watch the silly Looney Tunes and Scary Melodies. It's a scream.

Mr. Sheeple: Interesting that yourself and Micheal Moore both cite the allegation that Bush authorized the departure of the Saudi Royal family, at a time when all aircraft were grounded, due to the alleged Bush ties to the Saudis in various money deals, especially regarding the Carlyle Group. The Carlyle concept has also been shown as fiction, as well. Now, Richard Clarke, whom you quoted in a previous email as presenting anti-Bush administration evidence, claims that he alone authorized the flight for the safety of the Saudis. Of course, you will rationalize this concept in some manner by claiming that Clarke is lying, though not lying when Clarke's comments conviently support your views.

Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who served as a principal source for conspiracy filmmaker Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," said this week that the central premise of the film is "a mistake."

In an interview with the Associated Press, Clarke took issue with Moore's criticism that President Bush allowed prominent Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, to fly out of the U.S. in the days after the 9/11 attacks.

"Clarke told the 9/11 Commission the same thing in March, after first detailing the episode for Vanity Fair magazine last August - leaving plenty of time for Moore to adjust his film to the facts as recounted by his primary source." NewsMax.com Inside Cover Story

Sheeple Analyst: Not only will I not "rationalize this concept in some manner by claiming that Clarke is lying," I will remind you that I stated weeks ago, while Clarke was still testifying before the 9-11 committee, that it was irrelevant in any case because THERE WAS/IS AS YET NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE ANY ARABS or AL QAEDA ON THE PLANES. Remember? Establish the FIRST premise before attempting to draw conclusions. You could save yourself and me a lot of time and energy just remembering what I have stated instead of trying to make it up. If you read about the Mossad False Flag Ops on my website you would know that I don't buy the Al Qaeda crap. Not that that exonerates Bush, Clinton, Clarke, Rice, Cheney, et al. It just avoids going into a blind alley in the investigation.

Mr. Sheeple: Bet this information would appear in your alternative news sources.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/15/102331.shtml
For its final public hearing on Thursday, the Sept. 11 Commission will focus on why U.S. air defenses were unprepared to stop an airborne attack on America, a topic that could raise questions about the decision by the Clinton administration to abolish the New Jersey Air National Guard wing that had been designated to protect New York City airspace.

"They decreased the number of wings that were available to do that. So the result was that the closest fighter wing that had the capability to intercept one of those planes was in Massachusetts."

He pinned the blame for eliminating the air defenses that could have saved Tower 2 squarely on the Clinton administration, telling WABC, "The federal government in the last eight years cut down the resources. . . That's just a statement of fact."

Sheeple Analyst: You're still chasing your tail, you silly dawg. I've learned to stop that foolishness when it became clear that Rumsfeld had changed the protocol for responding to the FAA request for USAF interception of wayward aircraft. In June 2001, approval by the DOD Secretary became a requirement for sending interceptors aloft. That created tighter control on interception should such a request be made. With an exercise planned for September 11 that would include a mock attack by a commercial airliner on hi-profile buildings, it would be very easy to slip anomalous aircraft into the traffic that day. So there would be no NEED for a defense against foreign "terrorist" if the terrorists were inside the government or under supervision of a traitorous cabal.

My alternative sources are nationwide, worldwide and include YOUR sources. But I've told you that, documented that and still you maintain the lie. You are a dishonest person. (I had written "man," but I thought "person" would be more accurate.)

Bush could have undone Clinton's emasculation of the air response, but then they are both in it together, as I have documented many times before. You just refuse to accept the obvious reality. Again, you are attempting to shift blame. Did you do that often as a kid? I guess I didn't know you that well.

But if the Otis AFB had been sent aloft when the air traffic anomalies began to occur, they would have arrived in plenty of time. In fact, had they traveled at close to their maximum speed they would have arrived in plenty of time. Instead, from the official time of their take-off to their official arrival, the two F-15's were capable of 1850 mph and needed only to travel about 200 miles. You figure it out. They were loafing along at less than 1/3 speed. The lack of Air National Guard in New Jersey is a misdirection. There is no defense against treason.

And there is no reason to promote misdirection on my website except to call attention to the obvious treason that is behind 9-11.

It's hilarious how you come loping in with a tidbit that you think would destroy my facts, principles, and/or logic, but, not understanding what is behind the obvious, your "newsworthy" morsel can be easily shown to be totally irrelevant disinformation meant to program the organic computers of the susceptible sheeple. And then the specious argument that my alternative sources wouldn't carry it! What a joke! My sources are nearly all available news sources and you depend upon a few crackpot neocon propaganda sites. So far today, I have looked at news from NYT, Washington Post, Reuters and much more, and I posted articles from Yahoo, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Bloomberg, Mother Jones, Al-Jazeera, Guardian, US Newswire, Realcities, Boston Phoenix, Ha'aretz etc. Yet you continue to insist that mine are alternative news sites. What a joke!

Mr. Sheeple: So, how do you know the "truth" as the bump being a "missile pod"? The truth being in that what you believe and declare is a "missile pod? You talk about me evading the truth, and you do so yourself.

Why that lump is there, I have no idea, and I am not about to make unfounded assertions as you do. There exists no rational reason for the aircraft to be armed with any form of a missile, especially when encased in a "pod" with the "fire"coming out the front end (according to one photo) when the fire should be coming out the back end of the pod! If there was a missile in that "pod", (1) the heat from the rocket motor exhaust coming out an opening in the front would incinerate the missile before it even left the pod, and (2) it would also melt the aluminum pod. There is no logical reason for expending a rocket, fired before the aircraft hit the building and thus giving away the secret in a huge blast of smoke and fire before the plane hit.And, other videos of that plane hitting does not show any sign of a missile strike before the aircraft plows into the building! The mass of the aircraft, and burning fuel, would be sufficient to perpetrate the dastardly deed.

Sheeple Analyst: I explained all that before but you read too selectively to avoid knowing anything that might make your faith falter. I suggested the possibility of a missile pod, especially since it can be seen "firing" in several different views. You haven't studied it closely enough to know that. Your eyes can tell you. And you obviously missed reading the following from an earlier email, highlighted below:

Characterizing it as a "missile pod" is just one of the several hypothesis. The hypothesis I lean toward at the moment is a laser or perhaps a scalar weapon. Best to avoid jumping to conclusions, you know. Keep the thinking floor clear of preconceptions.

So you LEAP to the conclusion that I have drawn a CONCLUSION that it MUST be missile pods. I've done no such thing and the evidence precedes your nose. You miss what I said earlier because you have NO interest in digging out the truth. The only truth for you is your idolatrous ideology worshipped with intense faith and determination. Only the decorations and trimmings have changed from your earlier life. You miss what I said in the same way you missed the obvious number of engines on "Flight 175."

If nothing else, that lump is a marker that is too obvious to have been missed by the ground crew and baggage handlers, as you have noted. Therefore it is solid evidence that the plane that hit the WTC 2 was NOT UAL Flight 175. That logically means that someone made a switch, perhaps along the flight path after the transponder was turned off. That logically opens a can of worms, doesn't it? All of the questions I listed last Wednesday are highlighted below and copied into this, Saturday's email:

What then DID actually hit the WTC South Tower?
What happened to the real Flight 175 scheduled to be a Boeing 767?
How did the exchange occur?
Where did the exchange occur?
Where are the passengers?
Who outfitted the attack vehicle and for what purpose?
Why have we not been told any of this by the US government?
Who knew and when did they know it?

You are not the most accomplished and qualified individual to be second guessing why a missile should or should not be there. All that is necessary is to use your eyes and you can see, no argument, that there is a bump on the plane that could not have been there upon loading. Keep it simple and clear.

I make unfounded assertions? I have backed up my assertions so much that you complain of having to read so much. YOU make unfounded assertions with each breath. You can't make a single argument without unfounded assertions. You have convicted me of doing so only by ignoring or failing to read what I said. It's your way of lying your way out of a situation. Has that been a pattern of your life otherwise? You are making an unfounded assertion that it had to be a missile, even though I had suggested that it could be another kind of weapon but you avoid reading too much of what I DO say so that you have more room to dance, dart, dodge, and weasel.. Such a worm.

And with an industrial arts experience and training you seem to think yourself sufficiently prepared to develop weapons systems and implement their use. Such an engineer and thinker you are not. If you refocus on the bump and the ramifications of evidence, the lie begins to unravel layer by layer.

If you don't see the evidence in one video, look at 50 more. Some have had a frame or two removed as happened in the infamous Pentagon video. But most videos do have the bump. Focus on the bump and you will see that you have been lied to. The faith in those leaders (and others) is treason to the ideal and reality of America.

Mr. Sheeple: The mystery of the "missile pod" on the belly of the aircraft, heading into the WTC tower, is solved. It was obvously an A380 Airbus passenger plane that has a distinctive "pod" under the fuselage. It can be seen on the plane in flight in the large round picture on the right on this website.

I realized it when I was paging through my April 2004 American Machinist magazine and spotted photo of an A380 Airbus in flight, in an ad for DS Technologies German CNC machinetools handled by DS Technology in Cincinnatti, OH! The glint on the end the pod that "appeared" to be "fire" was probably a glint from the rising sun in the East, just before 0900 EST hours when the planes hit, and the sun coming up in the East would be at the right height and angle to reflect off the rounded corner of the "missile pod".

Now, you can forward this to Alex Jones to show that the mystery is solved and inform him that it was an Airbus aircraft designed and built with a funny "pod" under the fuselage rather than a "strapped on missile pod" as part of some military conspiracy.

http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_backgrounder.asp

Sheeple Analyst: And then we can count the engines on each wing and wonder when Airbus went from four engines to two on the wings. Would that make any difference in your analysis? Let me know so I can tell Alex and all the rest. (He was certainly not the first nor the only one to notice.) But since the Official Conspiracy Theory told us that it was a Boeing 767, we certainly wouldn't have suspected anything amiss to have an Airbus 380 with two of its engines removed for the occasion. Now we are having problems counting are we?

Mr. Sheeple: I was in error last Sunday when I sent photos of the airbus A380 thinking that flight 175 aircraft was a four-engined plane. This photo of an Airbus A320 shows "missile pods" at the wing roots as does the aircraft in the photos you sent me last week. It is puzzling that the alleged 767 should show the wingroot characteristics, mistaken for "missile pods" of the Airbus A320.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=222979

There are several reasons that "strapping a "missile pod" onto a 767 is an irrational concept"

Dispatchers keep track of all aircraft, and one sneaked onto a military Airforce Base to be fitted with a missile pod would raise questions as to its whearabouts. To claim that the airline was in on the "conspiracy" is absurd because it would add to the cast of thousands in the know.
Having the 767 into an airline hanger for maintenance is even more absurd. I asked my former neighbor (Tom), airline mechanic about it, and he thought anyone who believed such a thing is not thinking right.
Any "missile pod" attached to a 767 would be noticed as unusual by the airport ramp personnel, especially if it would be mounted over the baggage access doors where ramp crews had to load passanger bags.
Missiles mounted in a pod would pose a problem when fired because the exhaust of the rocket motor would burn through the rear of the "pod" and possibly damage the aircraft that might result in an incompleted mission.
A missile is quite heavy, and mounting a "missile pod" on the side of the fuselage would pose mounting problems because there are no weight bearing spars to support the weight. Spars run along the top of the fuselage and along the bottom and not along the sides composed only of light fram members supporting the skin.
A heavy "missile pod" mounted on one side would create "drag" problems causing the aircraft to yaw to one side and make the aircraft quite difficult to control, and would cause a tendency of the aircraft list to the starboard (right), and, especially at the 600mph flight speed and require excessive wingflap application to keep the aircraft flying level and in control.

I ran my thoughts past Tom, the airline mechanic, when I encountered him at 7-11 the other day, and he confirmed my analysis. He has worked on Airbus, 767s and many other aircraft whoking for Frontier Airlines and Continental in his 20 some years. Comparing the A320 Airbus physical characteristics with the image, it looks more like an Airbus than the 767 the aicraft is claimed to be. Whether or not someone was in error and why, remains the question.

Sheeple Analyst:

Are YOU finding fault with the Official Conspiracy Theory? They said it was a Boeing 767. Everybody said it was a Boeing 767. And they had experts on hand to tell you so. Are you going to provide a conspiracy theory to compete with the official one? That might be a break from the flock into the rare atmosphere of independent thought and inquiry.

Still, there is one major problem with the Airbus hypothesis. There is only ONE bump in each of the 100 images and the Airbus has two wings. Nice try though. If I were a teacher, I'd give you an A for effort and overlook the asymmetry of the logic.

You sure can take a misunderstanding and run with it. The "strap on" comment was not about actually strapping on an external accessory pod, but alluded to strapping on a gun holster like a Clint Eastwood gun slinger! Imagining the strapping on of an external accessory housing is quite ludicrous, but you thought of it first. Got your thinking cap on straight now!

Many of your arguments support my contention that UAL Flight 175 did NOT hit the WTC south tower. Whatever that was it could not have been Flight 175 because:

Dispatchers keep track of all aircraft, and one sneaked onto a USAF Base to be fitted with a missile pod would raise questions as to its whereabouts. [Remember that the transponder was turned off so that distinguishing between two different aircraft without transponders would be impossible.]
Having the 767 into an airline hanger for maintenance is even more absurd.
Any "missile pod" attached to a 767 would be noticed as unusual by the airport ramp personnel, especially if it would be mounted over the baggage access doors where ramp crews had to load passenger bags.

You seem to be catching on despite yourself. Something happened that day that we were not told about and that in itself raises a red flag of suspicion.

It's not my intent or job to figure out how that bump got there or what it actually contained. It simply does not belong there and it is unlikely Flight 175 took off with such an obvious anomaly. Therefore the: obvious questions follow:

What then DID actually hit the WTC South Tower?
What happened to the real Flight 175 scheduled to be a Boeing 767?
How did the exchange occur?
Where did the exchange occur?
Where are the passengers?
Who outfitted the attack vehicle and for what purpose?
Why have we not been told any of this by the US government?
Who knew and when did they know it?

There is no point in going into spin control. That bump practically pokes you in the eye. It is NOT supposed to be there.

You don't KNOW that it is a "missile pod." It could also be a laser or some such unusual weapon. That momentary glow on the wall before the plane hit was perhaps a clue. And when you watch the video, the "strike" seems to be more like lightning than a missile. But that proves nothing. Those are only hypotheses. And hypotheses are intended to be working assumptions to try out other explanations that are a better fit than the one we have been stuck with.

As for the aerodynamics, we can only see that that bump is there and the plane seemed to fly. Further, the enormously increased difficulty in handling the plane at that speed in that configuration shifts still more credibility to the remote control hypothesis. Handling an aerodynamically streamlined "heavy" would be an overwhelming task at that speed and pulling 5g's. Handling one that had surface irregularities would be impossible. Thanks for the additional argument. Thank Tom, too.

I have never suggested that the airline industry was "in on the conspiracy." Nevertheless, remember that a cast of thousands would not cause a very big problem because Americans are largely submissive to the programming on TV, the programming in the newspapers, and the programming in the schools. And where an ideology is concerned they will close their eyes to the truth, scream so they can't hear about it, and run away and divert their attention to avoid thinking about the consequences. Sticking their head into the sand of an ideology so their butt is ripe for the pricking is preferred to getting a reality check and taking responsibility for their ignorance and laxity. I know. I have the documentation.

Odd that CNNBCBSABCFox never mentioned the bump. You can go look at them all.

BTW, we now know why no interceptors went aloft in the critical first hour: Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff made a tiny modification in the administration of the duties of the Department of Defense. They required approval of any and all requests for air support from civilian agencies even in an emergency. This has quietly slipped below the notice of the so-called inquiries into 9-11. See

May 4, 2004
DOD Documents show evidence Rumsfeld a co-conspirator in 9-11 USAF stand down

You can see how he and Condi pushed the "Pearl Harbor effect" and the root of the ploy.

We can now see why Bush was helped into the Presidency: to be a fall guy. He has been betrayed, too, but he's not smart enough to see it. That's what has made him a perfect patsy. It is no accident that CBS showed the whole world what was happening in Saddam's torture prison.

The US has expended even more of its treasure and vigor,
we are closer to receivership than ever before,
the dollar was falling out of favor with oil producing nations,
Saddam had announced that he would shift to the Euro,
Arab oil producers have been talking about the Islamic Dinar which is backed by gold,
our nation and the UK have been shown to be frauds regarding democracy and liberation because of the atrocities
Islamic countries have been shocked and dismayed at the demonic capacity of the great liberators and they will
pull the plug. No more the use of the US Dollar for settling oil accounts,
too many surplus dollars floating around with nothing to buy means a severe loss of the value of the dollar
Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae are so extremely over-extended with derivatives
that any little increase in the interest rate will likely cause an implosion
and there goes the economy, the deepest depression Americans have ever faced.

The Illuminati agenda will have been followed to the jot and tittle, a real Jew (Kerry) will take over from the goy administrator who failed miserably. People will be so desperate that they will not care that they have lost their freedom, they just beg for food and shelter. And then it gets worse.

Or maybe not.

Mr. Sheeple:

In your email sending me the photos, you made a comment about terrorists unable to "strap on" a missile pod.
The photos you sent from Alex Jones' website did not show a pod on the left side due to the angle, and that does not mean one was not there as part of the original construction.

No, I am not "finding fault with the official theory", just questioning in the same manner as you question. I guess when you question, it is "politically correct". But when I question concepts, you get pissed and consider me a "dummy" because I am not naive enough to accept all the conspiracy concepts at face value.

Sheeple Analyst:

It's about time you started questioning something. The angle is a phony argument. A second bulge does not show in 100 successive frames which means from many different angles. Since the bulge is curved, something should show. Take a look at my news page now. I have a much clearer image. No second bulge. You're grasping desperately at straws to preserve your argument. Failing to notice the number of engines shows that desperation. Trying to make the Airbus fit the profile when the Official Conspiracy Theory describes a Boeing 767 shows that desperation to explain away the lack of a second bulge on a photographic bad angle.

So it seems that you have no realistic hopes of coming up with something honest to dismiss this recent revelation. Desperation shows up in your switching to the dodge and dart of your last paragraph. As usual, you guess wrong. You are so foolish as to think that there can only be a political motivation. That is a stark commentary on your view of the world from your ideology idolatry. I consider you a dummy because you think that the Jews sailed into the Holy Land where nobody lived and started the state of Israel. I consider you a dummy because you jump all over the idea of the Airbus replacement for the Boeing without considering the ramifications for your own ideological position and without even noticing that there are not four engines in the images. I consider you a dummy because you claim the high ground looking down on dumbed down students when you have clearly missed a turn or two yourself. At least you were man enough to admit that you can't count. You've proved you can't read. You've proved that you will lie whenever it suits your argumentation. You still haven't admitted to hundreds of silly statements over the past 2.5 years. Instead you have dodged and darted, danced and pranced, just so you could avoid confronting the truth. It's been pathetic and pathological. You whine about a comment made by me or Bobby Meyers, (you can't remember which) over 42 years ago and nurse ancient grudges to keep them good and sharp. I had kept watching to see if a real man would stand up and take responsibility, but that is a vain hope.

Mr. Sheeple:

Who or what establishes the "official conspiracy theory"? What makes it "official"? Has someone decreed it as official?

There still exists the problem of logistics regarding attaching a "missile pod" to a 767. A 767 with an abnormal bulge would attract attention as it was in place to load passengers, especially if the bulge was over the baggage loading doors in the belly and blocking them. For the airline to be complicit in a conspiracy to allow one of their aircraft to be fitted with some form of "missile pod" is to expand the conspiracy knowledge to the point where somone would talk and the story would be out.

What point would there be in having missiles in a "missile pod" and fire one at the building before the plane struck it and destroyed it, and thus gave away the conspiracy when everyone would see and hear a missile strike to give away the secret? After all, a 767 slamming into the tower would cause far more damage than a missile fired into it before the plane hit. What point would there be in having "missiles in a pod" attached to the aircraft if just to carry them into the building while crashing? Instead of a pod, they could put them into the baggage area and not arouse suspicion!. But missiles in the baggage area would prevent loading of luggage. If there were no passengers on the aircraft, then what happened to the people listed on the manifest that is on several websites? The very passenger lists you apparently scanned to determine that nobody with middle eastern names were listed? Or, do you believe the "passengers" listed were not aboard the plane but were bought off to pose as passengers and go into hiding to perpetuate the conspiracy theory? Relatives of the passengers who died when that 767 hit the towers are mourning their loss. Are they faking, knowing full well their relatives were not aboard as passengers? But, if passengers were indeed aboard when it crashed, then the "pod" would have been attached to the aicraft while loading passenges at the terminal before taking off and crashing into the WTC towers. And, an unusual "missile pod" would have been sticking out like a zit on the nose of a beautiful woman and would raise questions!

It the plane has a bulge, I have not the faintest idea as to why. I will download your picture and show it to my former neighbor and ask him if he can identify the bulge and why it would be attached to an aircraft. It seems to me that a logical place to attach anything would be on the bottom of the fuselage where the main longitudal structural member was and where it would not interfere with the baggage doors and piss off the baggage handlers.

Sheeple Analyst:

You and the rest of the sheeple established the "official conspiracy theory" by your narrow-minded adherence to it as dogma. You were programmed, conditioned by countless hours of hearing it over and over while traumatized by the emotional impact. It's a classical example of mind control. The cheapest, most effective prison is a person's own mind. Those you look up to for leadership spoke, and their explanation of events became official by you granting them that privilege. To you and the rest of the sheeple it became a decree that could not be questioned. I violate that decree because I refuse to grant them that privilege because I am the sovereign, not them. You see that violation as being anti-American. I see your inability to think outside their box as desertion and an abrogation of your duty as an American.

First, I have explained the silliness of the "small number of conspirators" theory as bunk and propaganda intended to limit your thinking. Precisely because you have been fed that line and believe it as gospel, you are the proof of the lie. The bump on the bottom of "Flight 175" pokes you in the eye and you have to dance, dart, and dodge to avoid the obvious: the plane was not "Flight 175" and those who told you that it was are traitors to the American people. If an entire people can be so hoodwinked by the lies of Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, they were finally ready for the whoppers of Dubya. They got away with it with the sinking of the Lusitania, the "national emergency" that forced people to give up their gold for paper receipts, Pearl Harbor, the "Holocaust", Donald's "taxes to beat the Axis," the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it would save 1 million GIs, the founding of the United Nations, assassination of Kennedy, King, Bobby, Iran-Contra, Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC bombing, and the WTC bombing. Rubes ready to be taken. Chumps set up to take the final fall. Cast of thousands? No, millions, duped, paid off, prodded, whatever it takes. I've described it as the secret hidden in plain sight. This is possible by dumbing down students, teachers, everybody so that they could not imagine such hard cruelty and immoral behavior. But then you haven't read the Talmud, either.

I've already given you the information to answer your questions, but I'll give you a bit of information. The rest is on my website. You can go there like others who really wish to know do each day.

The plane that hit the WTC 2 was obviously NOT UAL Flight 175. There was a switch. Don't start squabbling with the idea until you have had time to check it out. I can just about hear your mind running with reasons why this could not be. Well, shut up and listen without prejudice.. Look up Operation Pearl. Keep your mind in neutral if that's possible. Conclusions are supposed to be drawn AFTER the analysis of the evidence.

The switch does not have to involve the complicity of an airline since Boeing 767's can and are purchased by the government for other purposes. What's a few million dollars with a black budget of billions each year? It's just funny money anyway. I'll let Professor Kee Dewdney lay it out for you. I don't wish to spare any more time doing it again.

Why missiles? I don't know. I didn't do the engineering analysis, but the steel beams in the exterior walls are not insubstantial and why take the chance of a partial penetration and the wreckage falling to the street to be examined and inspected. Too much chance that a secret could leak out....a part number that shows that the plane was not one of the UAL fleet, an embarrassing part that should not be there, markings that should have been there if it were in the UAL fleet, a need to create the proper emotional effect on those who were watching the show, we'll have to find that out later.

It's clear that you are still not thinking outside the official box. You persist in trying to squeezed this strange anomaly into the Official Conspiracy Theory but it doesn't fit. When you had a jigsaw puzzle that had a piece that didn't fit, I suppose you could have thrown it away and forgotten about it. But this is reality. Pinch. Yep (as you are wont to say) this is real.

Did you scan the passenger lists looking for the Arab names? They must be there because they paid with their credit cards. You've mentioned taking a flight or two, so you probably know that names on the credit cards and identification must match. So according to the FBI those who used credit cards to buy their ticket would necessarily have to have their name listed in the passenger manifest. You are having difficulty with this evidence, that's clear, because it does indeed stick out like a zit on the nose of a beautiful woman.

There's no need to bring the families of the passengers into the conspiracy because as far as they know their loved ones died in the crash, burn, and collapse. And they might indeed be dead but from other causes.

Passengers could have been tricked as much as most of the American sheeple were tricked by their good shepherd.

The new picture is not so fuzzy and shows that there was only ONE bulge. The other picture was probably expanded too much or came from a different camera. There were dozens of videos taken of that plane on its approach.

Characterizing it as a "missile pod" is just one of the several hypothesis. The hypothesis I lean toward at the moment is a laser or perhaps a scalar weapon. Best to avoid jumping to conclusions, you know. Keep the thinking floor clear of preconceptions.

Mr. Sheeple:

It works two ways, Allen! Your words below apply also to people who get so immersed in a conspiracy that fact is inseparable from fallacy. Remember the phrase "Repeat a lie often enough, and it soon passes for truth"?

"It's a classical example of mind control. The cheapest, most effective prison is a person's own mind."

Sheeple Analyst:

The difference is that I back up the assertions with evidence and you with opinions

Mr. Sheeple:

Sure, "evidence" from some website which either misconstrues information and reports it in the context of some alleged conspiracy, or states a conspiracy as fact and all other conspiracy theorists repeat the lies as the truth. And, CONSPIRACY SHEEPLE SUCH AS YOURSELF GET CAUGHT UP IN IT AND THEN GET IN A SELF-RIGHTEOUS SNIT WHEN FALLACIES OF YOUR PREMISE ARE POINTED OUT!

Sheeple Analyst:

So here is the way that you get around the zit in the Official Conspiracy Theory. You launch into personal attack when you have no other ammunition. You can't face the lie so you scream at the truth. Misconstrue the bump? All you need do is LOOK at the bump and keep looking at it while you parse the probabilities.

When facts and logic fail you, which is always, you get emotional and start screaming "No fair!" and run and hide. Truly NO BACKBONE. Do you see the lesson? No.

You have not pointed out one fallacy in the assertions before you here. That bump is an incontrovertible fact and you can't allow yourself to admit it so you rage in red and shout that it is all a lie. Grow UP.

Gravity is not a fallacy. At least not yet. It works one way and it works well enough to put man on the moon. But you must make exceptions so that the WTC falls fast enough.

The only planes that could be piloted by remote control are the Boeing 757 and the Boeing 767 so you go looking for a way out by finding a plane that doesn't have the right number of engines. How could you miss that? That was SO obvious. Because you weren't looking for the truth, just a way out, an excuse. Plain as the nose on your face and you were blinded by the religious fervor to prove the infidel wrong. Disgusting.

You can't find those Arab names on the passenger manifest even though they used a credit card to buy the ticket. So you just go to sleep or shift to another more fruitful tack to maintain the lie: dance, dart, dodge, and weasel.

You can't explain how the American consul would be apologizing in person to al-Omari after the FBI had plastered his photo all over the world's newspapers blaming him for 9-11. So you go to sleep or shift to another artless dodge.

Pathetic. Pathologically sheeple. You can't fight facts with your own evidence so you make claims that I do not have real facts. Those facts are a plain as the zit .... I don't have to make them up. That's why it is so easy countering your silly defenses of the sick ideology that you idolize. Can't count. Can't read. Can't follow simple logic. Fight scientific principles by claiming that your experience in industry somehow trumps truth and you look dumber than a stump. Calling me a sheeple without any evidence is just prepubescent name-calling, hardly dignifying for an elder. It might be too late to grow up. But you could at least make an attempt.

Mr. Sheeple:

Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml

Sheeple Analyst:

Three elements of a criminal investigation are motivation, means, and opportunity. Evidence is gathered to fill in the details in each of these categories. The possible scenarios include a false flag operation in which a criminal tries to place blame for a criminal act on an innocent individual or group. A False Flag Operation? The discovery of a connection between Mohammed Atta and Abu Nidal in Iraq is interesting more for who it implicates as perpetrator of a false flag operation. Since Abu Nidal has been implicated as an asset of the Israeli Mossad, this becomes part of the evidence pointing the finger of guilt at Israel as the perpetrator of 9-11 because of the attempt to mask their involvement with false information that points toward their Arab enemies, especially Saddam Hussein. Motivation: There are many possible ways that implementing 9-11 would motivate Israel to shift attention from Zionist atrocities in Palestine and to further exacerbate peace and tranquility in the region. With a track record of "Mission Impossible" successes and their willingness to even sacrifice their own people for the cause of furthering the State, Zionists have succeeded over the centuries in demonstrating their cold cruelty and efficiency at murder, massacre and manipulation. Means: With the backing of the US Treasury, funding from Zionist International Financiers, and Zionist collusion in drug running, arms sales, child prostitution, pornography, and money laundering world wide, Zionist Israel has acquired the means to carry out any operation anywhere in the world. Opportunity: They have access to US communications, consumer data, and business transactions, control of most of the US media, banks, courts, politicians, military, industry, commerce, shipping, and education. Hijackers on board unproven: As evidence that Arabs were involved in 9-11, the Nidal-Atta connection is not very convincing since there is as yet no incontrovertible evidence that any Arab hijackers were on board or piloted the planes to their target. There is, on the other hand significant evidence to show that

no human could have piloted Flights 175 and 77 in accordance with the Official Conspiracy Theory, (at 575 mph, the controls of a Boeing 767 become almost impossible for a human pilot to handle because of built in flight computer program)
no way for Mohammed Atta or any Arab to trick the USAF to stand down for an hour while they flew around the Northeast,
no way for a carbon nose cone to slam through a foot thick reinforced wall and not leave debris outside the exit point at the Pentagon,
no way for cellphones to function at that altitude and speed,
no way for a building to fall at the rate of free fall and still encounter masses on the way down and so on.

An Interconnected Web of Evidence: There is now a broad, interconnected web of evidence that can be consulted to see if or how any new evidence fits the puzzle in order to verify its relevance to an investigation. Since the FBI has not removed from its list any of any of the 7 hijackers who survived the crash, burn, and collapse of buildings, their list is not credible. Since there has been no real evidence to link the 9-11 event with any Arabs, al Qaeda, or hijackers of any race, there is no rationale to bring into the investigation any evidence of who Mohammed Atta saw or what he communicated in the months prior to September 11. Without that evidentiary link there is no purpose served examining evidence about Arab hijackers except to learn who was being targeted for the blame by others who had organized a false flag operation.

Without this link in the evidentiary chain, there is no validity in pursuing an investigation of hijackers. The Bush Administration promised the evidence, but they have reneged on that promise. They could have commanded the department heads of the Executive Branch to make public the evidence that has been gathered. Even simple, unclassifiable information such as the surveillance tape of the "missile" that hit the Pentagon could show that a Boeing 757 really did strike the Pentagon. A video of a plane hitting a building should not be classified as a National Security secret unless the National Security State has something to hide. Every CCTV surveillance tape for miles around was confiscated and never released to the public.

The steel of the World Trade Center debris should never have been removed from this country until metallurgists could analyze the forensic evidence of the crime. There was no credible cause for the rush. Normal criminal procedures were noticeable by their absence. Analysis of its condition should not be harmful to the national security unless the National Security State would fear for its own security if the truth were known.

The black boxes, fireman and police tapes, and FAA records could have no National Security value unless a National Security State feared for its security if the people found out who actually caused the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

When a nation has been shocked by a brutal mass murder, there should be willing cooperation with a thorough independent investigation. Instead there has been nothing but resistance, non-cooperation, stone-walling, foot-dragging, and questionable appointment of cronies who have not recused themselves from the direction of the investigation. Normally it is the criminals who shun the light of day, and public knowledge of their actions is covered up by the criminals, not the victimized. We have seen the complicit culprits who have identified themselves by their actions and refusal to act. Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

Mr. Sheeple:

"I opened the PDB to rearrange the notes and noticed the heading "Operation Bojinka." I keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons and another plot to put bombs on U.S. airliners. Because I was a pilot, this naturally grabbed my attention. I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community, and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it."

What happened as a result of this shocking PDB? Col. Patterson recently told me that the information was relayed to the intelligence community and Clinton formed a White House Commission on Aviation Safety & Security, chaired by Vice President Gore. "

The above is from a book by Col. Robert Patterson, who was the aide to Clinton and carried the nuclear "football" containing codes for a rataliatory strike. Clinton knew about the plot but did nothing, not Bush.

Sheeple Analyst:

You've never responded to the information about the Bush Administration closing down investigations of the bin Ladens and the Saudis. John O'Neill of the FBI Counter-terrorism Division was repeatedly obstructed by Bush appointees in tracking down leads until he finally quit to handle security at the WTC. His body was found in the rubble. Until you do respond you have nothing to say about the Clinton Administration's fault in 9-11. You must also respond to the whistleblower in Saudi Arabia who was told by a Bush appointee to stop following regulations restricting Saudi access to visas. You will need to confront the restrictions placed on field agents by their supervisors in the FBI during the Bush Administration. You will have to explain John Ashcroft's irritation at receiving counter-terrorism briefings from Tom Pickard. Or go to Geoff Metcalf's interviews with David Schippers that appeared in WorldNetDaily!! http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25008 Missed that didn't you.

As for the White House Commission on Aviation Safety & Security, chaired by Vice President Gore click here to read the official report of the task force. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/taskforce/rptintro.htm Too bad you can't just go do some simple research yourself to check out what you are talking about instead of just grabbing someone else's allegations. Here's more reported by Judicial Watch:

". an active FBI Special Agent filed a complaint last week concerning FBI/Justice Department interference in and mishandling of terrorist investigations. The FBI Special Agent, who wishes to remain anonymous at this time, alleges that he was retaliated against when he continued to push for and pursue certain terrorist investigations over the objections of his FBI and Justice Department supervisors. The FBI Special Agent, who is represented by Judicial Watch and David Schippers, Esq., filed the complaint last week with the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (IG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

"Based on the evidence, the FBI Special Agent believes that if certain investigations had been allowed to run their courses, Osama bin Laden's network might have been prevented from committing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which resulted in the deaths of nearly 5,000 innocents. Judicial Watch is requesting a full scale, independent investigation into its client's concerns and seeks to hold accountable those responsible for preventing the full investigation of terrorist activity here in the United States and abroad."[i]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] JW Press Release, 'Active FBI Special Agent Files Complaint Concerning Obstructed FBI Anti-Terrorist Investigations', Judicial Watch, Washington DC, 14 November 2001.

And from the conservative New American:

FBI Whistleblowers

As we will show, the feds knew no later than June that an attack from bin Laden was coming. By August it had identified several key co-conspirators, and had one in custody. And two days after the attack Chicago attorney David Schippers - a lifelong Democrat who was chief investigative counsel in the Clinton impeachment - disclosed that he had attempted to warn Attorney General John Ashcroft about the coming attack.

As previously reported in this magazine ("OKC Bombing: Precursor to 9-11?" in our January 28, 2002 issue), Schippers told a Pittsburgh radio audience on September 13th that he had learned from FBI agents in Minnesota and Chicago that a massive terrorist attack had been planned for lower Manhattan. He had developed this information six weeks before the Black Tuesday atrocity. However, Justice Department officials repeatedly spurned Schippers' attempts to provide the information to Ashcroft; one of them reportedly sneered, "We don't start our investigations at the top." This is a curious objection, given Schippers' credentials and professional standing - and given that Ashcroft himself had warned in June that "Americans are a high-priority target for terrorists."

Three veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed to THE NEW AMERICAN that the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11th. Because these individuals face possible personal or professional retaliation, they agreed to speak with us on condition of anonymity. Two of them, however, have expressed a willingness to testify before Congress regarding the views they have shared with us.

"I don't buy the idea that we didn't know what was coming," a former FBI official with extensive counter-terrorism experience commented to THE NEW AMERICAN. "Within 24 hours [of the attack] the Bureau had about 20 people identified, and photos were sent out to the news media. Obviously this information was available in the files and somebody was sitting on it." This former FBI agent noted that before Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "Twentieth Hijacker," was detained in Minneapolis, he had undergone flight instruction in Oklahoma, "where we know that Arab terrorist networks have been established for many years."

An active federal counter-terrorism investigator told THE NEW AMERICAN that it was well known "all over the Bureau, how these [warnings] were ignored by Washington.... All indications are that this information came from some of [the Bureau's] most experienced guys, people who have devoted their lives to this kind of work. But their warnings were placed in a pile in someone's office in Washington.... In some cases, these field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th. So we were all holding our breath . hoping that the situation would be remedied."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/03-11-2002/vo18no05_didweknow.htm

Of course, the Bush Administration is not alone in its complicity. The Clinton Administration had eight years in which to prevent 9-11 and Bush only 8 months. Therefore we need to take a non-partisan, non-ideological look at what happened, a no-holds-barred search for the truth, not partisan bickering and sandbox antics. It makes no difference who is guilty nor who is guiltier. Treason is treason no matter the perpetrator.

Mr. Sheeple:

"I opened the PDB to rearrange the notes and noticed the heading "Operation Bojinka." I keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons and another plot to put bombs on U.S. airliners. Because I was a pilot, this naturally grabbed my attention. I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community, and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it."

The above is a quote from a book "Dereliction of Duty" by Col. Patterson who was an aide to President Clinton and who carried the nuclear "football" containing nuclear strike retaliation codes.

Adding interest to the growing situation is that Jamie Gorelick, then asst. Attorney General under Janet Reno, as brought out recently, was the author of a memo that "built a wall" between the CIA and FBI that prevented sharing of information. Therefore, the PDB mentioned above was obviously not passed on to the Bush administration. Instead, the focus was on the PDF of August 6, 2001 that never stated anything specific. As noted by April 11 Newsmax.com story "How Bush could have prevented the 9/11 attacks", Bush would have had to shut down the country entirely due to a lack of specific information on which to act.

It appears that your focus on the Bush administration as responsible for the 9-11 plot was misdirected. Probably due to your focus on "alternet", and other anti-Bush pro-liberal left websites that would be reluctant to publish anything detrimental to the Clinton administration. I doubt that the Democrat PAC "Moveon.org" would dare to publish anything of detriment to Clinton and the Democrats.

By limiting your information and research to that which supports your preconceived ideas and beliefs, you are deceiving yourself.

Sheeple Analyst:

At least I am not smashing myself in the face with facts that are self-mutilating. I, too, doubt that MoveOn.org will publish any thing negative about Democrats. So what? What I found and passed on to you was about the Bush Administration saying IN THEIR OWN WORDS what Richard Clark had just said. You bounce around looking for anything to protect and defend your ideology instead of looking for truth. That's pathetic and pathological. That's what lead Bush into dismissing the threat of terrorism on American soil in the first place.

That Jamie Gorelick walled off FBI from CIA does NOT imply that the intelligence community walled off information from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. That is not a logical conclusion to draw from those words. To be interpreted that way, Gorelick would have had to wall off intelligence gained during the Clinton presidency from the Bush presidency. HER MEMO DOES NOT DO THAT NOR DO ANY LAWS DO THAT. This is yet another example of the way the ideology twists normal mental processes to develop such confusion and misinformation. With blood in your eyes you take wild swings that connect only on your own face. Looking for truth provides a much calmer more effective position of strength.

You don't seem to understand that Col. Patterson's statement proves my assertion that the awareness about Project Bojinka and the potential of commercial airliners being slammed into buildings was common currency "within the U.S. intelligence community, and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it." In January 2001, Bush inherited an intelligence community that had been aware of this potential threat. Presidents before him have always inherited an intelligence bureaucracy that they had to learn quickly to tap. And from one administration to another there has always been information passed on to the next regime. What is clear from the Bush Administration's own documents is that they dismissed that threat and gave priority to other preparations.

Beware of ruling out what might have been part of the August 6, PDB until you get the entire document. How do you know what was in that document without seeing all of it. Bushes say so? Rice's say so? Putting an awful lot of FAITH in that doctrine again, aren't you? And what of all the other PDBs?

I've already responded to the Newmax article. Why do you repeat it without responding to my response instead of repeating the same misdirection of the Zionist neoconservative lie rag?

And I rarely quote AlterNet. Most of my information comes from a careful selection of mainstream sources. I've told you that but you think you can get leverage by repeating the same nonsense. Lying will obtain only a contract with Satan. In contrast, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, Weekly Standard, and Townhall are hardly mainstream sources. They are promoters of Sharonist blood and war propaganda of the chickenhawk right.

Anyway, thanks for providing proof for my thesis that the hijacking and crashing of commercial airliners into buildings was NOT a surprise to the American intelligence community and that it had been considered and discussed for several years prior to 9-11. They even made a TV pilot about it shown March 3, 2001 and held two exercises to explore the ramifications of such a potential threat. I'll probably use your Col. Patterson quote on my website.

Your flimsy, unsupported, unsupportable attempt at projecting your own pathology on me just doesn't make any sense. I have revealed the lies of Democrats as well as Republicans, but the GOP is in control of most of the handles of power at the moment so that is where much of my attention is now. Or would you wish to get tangled in trying to "do something about the past that we cannot change"...? You still don't seem to see how you have lied to yourself about that. When it serves your ideology you will go into the past but when it does not serve you Lord and Master you belittle any such attempt to look back on history even though you CAN learn from the patterns of history to understand the contemporary scene. A useful description is "two-faced" or "speaking with forked tongue" or "talking out both sides of your mouth" or "trying to have it both ways" or "having your cake and eating it, too."

The fact is that I have found many ideologies in myself that I have been forced by the power of truth to change and to eliminate. The power of truth cannot penetrate your ideology because your ideology has become your identity without which you think you could not survive. I have learned to shed ideologies constantly as I search for the truth. To bad you can't come along on that journey with me. It really "lightens" the load, but you would have no clue what that means.

Mr. Sheeple:

The chairman of the independent commission probing the 9/11 attacks said Sunday that the U.S. probably missed its best chance to take Osama bin Laden out during the Clinton administration, when the notorious terrorist left Sudan for Afghanistan in 1996.

"If we had acted earlier on al Qaeda when al Qaeda was smaller and just getting started, even before bin Laden went to Afghanistan, there were times we could have gotten him," former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean told NBC's "Meet the Press."

NewsMax

Sheeple Analyst:

The former Republican Governor of New Jersey appointed by the Republican President might be expected to ignore the opportunity the US counter-terrorism agents to get to Osama bin Laden when he was in Dubai for kidney dialysis in June of 2001. A CIA agent met with him even. "Hmmmm" as you like to say. I've told you about this several times in the past 3 years and still you can't remember this. Why is that? Notice how NewsMax did not remind you of the truth. Notice the lie behind the appellation, "independent."

That is also an excuse for not stopping bin Laden and al-Qaeda when the Bush Administration had reduced their effort to do anything with bin Laden in their own words--April 2001.

And all of that is assuming that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are independent terrorists and not just assets of the CIA terrorism organization. And it assumes that there is incontrovertible proof that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were involved in actually hijacking, navigating, and flying planes into tall buildings while flying directly OVER USAF bases on the return to NYC and the Pentagon without even stirring the USAF into intercepting them. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

And you still haven't figured out that Clinton and Bush are not in total control of the US government and only respond to the puppet masters who pull the strings. THREE LAYERS of ignorance.

Dense comes to mind. But that is the degree of effectiveness of the programming that dumbs down other sheeple, so you can take some solace in the fact that you are not alone. Maybe some folks just love to be programmed so they don't have to take responsibility tor their actions. They are nevertheless responsible for their actions and will be held accountable.

Mr. Sheeple:

Fact No. 1: "Ramzi Yousef" entered the U.S. in September 1992 on an Iraqi passport, with stamps showing a journey beginning in Baghdad. This fact is attested by the inspector who admitted Yousef into the U.S. Yet Mr. Clarke contends that Yousef entered the U.S. without a passport.

Very Awkward Facts

Sheeple Analyst:

So what is your contention? Everything Clarke says is a lie? I would suggest that everyone in government is a potential liar. Laurie Mylroie is a veteran dissembler. You can tell in the first sentence when she characterizes Clarke as an Clinton advisor without noting his 30 year career under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II. That's the first lie and we hadn't even come to the end of the first sentence..

Her point seems to be that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi terrorist under Saddam. Fact is, he fled arrest in Iraq in coming to the US Far from being in league with Saddam, he might have been, in fact, in opposition. Laurie Mylroie doesn't mention that vital fact, either.

Ramzi Yousef entered the US as an Iraqi national fleeing persecution from the Saddam Hussein government, participated in carrying out the explosion and fled the US with a Pakistani passport issued by the Pakistani consulate in New York. From this, sections of the Pakistani media used to refer to him and Khalid as Pakistani nationals of Iraqi origin.

Arrest of Khalid: Another of Hydra's heads?

That's twice.

The fact still remains unchallenged by you or the Zionist neoconservative traitors that the 2001 Annual Report on Terrorism from the Bush White House corroborates Clarke's contention that, in their own words, less attention would be paid to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and that it was correcting a mistake of the previous administration.

Strike THREE! You're outa there!

You like whiffing like that when you come up to the plate? Why don't you put on CLEAR glasses that allow you to see how the ideology screws up accurate perception. The only accurate way to look at the world is to look at the truth, not the ideology. Ideology is a program. No matter the quality of the organic computer, garbage in = garbage out. Delete the virus that has taken over or be prepared to be flim flammed the rest of your life.

As far as you are concerned, Laurie Mylroie was a Clinton advisor, too, and that should discredit her in your ideology.....except your ideology includes "win at any cost, even if you must lie, be inconsistent, misquote, quote the misquoters, ignore the truth, hide the truth from yourself, etc."

Mr. Sheeple:

Before you bother to shove this in my face, consider the possibility that perhaps the FBI and CIA failed to pass on to Bush the vital information!

US officials knew Al-Qaeda planned plane attacks whistle-blower http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040402/pl_afp/us_attacks_commission_040402085031

Sheeple Analyst:

Such a strange perception! I don't throw anything in your face. I provide information that deepens your database so that you can begin to shake the ideology that prevents you from searching for truth. Your ego has identified so closely with the ideology that it perceives truth and information as an imposition and attack on the ideology and therefore an attack on you personally. Hence your visceral response and the "anything goes" support for the ideology--lie, threaten, blame, misdirect, avoid, duck, dodge, scream, run and hide, hurl epithets and meaningless projections, and ride the Tutti-Fruiti Express around another pointless track to avoid confronting reality head on.

I have considered the possibility that the FBI and CIA failed to pass on the vital information. But then that does not explain why the heads of the FBI and CIA , Mueller and Tenet, are not only in their jobs 3 years AFTER Levin's "blockage" and two years AFTER Carl Levin no longer holds such power. It also does not explain why some of those in the high echelons of the FBI who stopped field investigations were not demoted, they were PROmoted. Carl Levin was NOT in charge for the past three years. If you weren't spending all of your energy and attention defending the ideology you might notice the obvious reality.

The liars are also whiners because they like to lie to themselves and to the American people that someone else is to blame, not them. That is a sign of moral and spiritual immaturity. When accepting the responsibility one must be responsible. If they cannot handle the responsibility without seeking to shift the blame all the time, then they should not be in that position. And people who helped them acquire that position of responsibility should take upon themselves the responsibility to retract that support and re-examine their own errors and not blame everyone else. Like grow up already.

Mr. Sheeple:

"While Levin was holding up their appointments, the incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their vital jobs - a fact that helps explain why it took eight months for the Bush administration to draw up a strategic operational plan to destroy al-Qaida. "

Clarke's friends say he's lost credibility

Sheeple Analyst:

In their own words ..

...on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."

This actually looks like a policy to me. Crying that the Democrats made me do it is just the juvenile behavior of the Bush Liars' Club that seems familiar to the juveniles that support his treason, murder, and thievery backed by a mountain of lies, more lies, and damned lies. Sounds like you are trying to get into the tree house with the gang so you will dig up any kind of lame excuse to get the onus off your Ideology leader. If lying at all costs is a sacred ideology to you, you will have a big pile of karma as a consequence.

Mr. Sheeple:

Interesting to note that the "Misleader" is linked to "Move on.org" which is the official lie sheet of the Liberal left Democrats and comparable to the supermarket tabloids such as the National Inquirer. But you have not answered to the assertion of the fact. Stand still, catch your breath and tell us all that the CNN report referred to by Moveon.org was a lie. Do you have proof of that? The official lie sheet (What evidence do you have of its "official" status) of the Democrats and the Clinton administration that had 8 years in office to deal with terrorism beginning with bin Laden's group with the original WTC bombing of '93. Didn't they bring terrorists to trial? But the Dems failed to get bin laden three times, once even offered by Sudan, and only ineffectually lobbed a few missiles into Baghdad, the Sudan aspirin factory and elsewhere to detract from his impeachment and Lewinsky problems. All this ineffective "anti-terrorist" activity was in charge of Richard Clarke who is now self-righteously wailing about the Bush administration allegedly not doing enough. Seems that Dubya was really stupid to hire him, in that case. Why would he hire such a failure?

Bush officially became President when inaugurated on January 20th 2001 and inherited ineffective Richard Clarke from the Clinton administration. Bush put together his own team but the obstinate Senate Democrats refused to confirm his appointments until late July of 2001 and 9-11 occurred just over a month later.......and Democrats who had 8 years to deal decisively with bin Laden are complaining? Condoleeza Rice demoted Richard Clarke from his anti-terrorist activities where he was apparently quite inept, and put him in charge of "cyber security". Disgruntled, he quit and wrote his scathing book that sheeple such as yourself perceive as a condemnation of the Bush's anti-terrorist activities. Seems the Bush Administration condemned itself by their own words. Gathering diverse sources and focusing on real facts is not a strong suit for sheeple. I don't think you can make that label stick on me no matter how much you try. Again facts and performance speak so much louder than the bleating projections of Mr. Sheeple.

Read the book "Catastrophe" by Christopher Ruddy and Carl Limbacher jr. that contains a chronology of bungled anti-terrorism efforts by Bill Clinton. A president who subverted the CIA and FBI from their respective roles and defunded the CIA. Had their role remained one of keeping a watch on potential threats to the U.S., rather than worrying about the Branch Davidians, Ruby Ridge and other actions against U.S. citizens, perhaps 9-11 would not have occurred. Perhaps if the Bush Administration, had not squandered so much time and resources in its predilection for making war on Iraq, they might have kept an eye on domestic threats. They failed and they are convicted by their own words. And you are too dishonest to admit it even to yourself. THAT is sheeple. Trapped by your own legend in your own mind.

Sheeple Analyst:

Answer to the assertion of fact in evidence. Did a senior Bush State Department official in the spring of 2001 state that the previous government focus on Osama bin Laden was a mistake?

The Central Issue is...

on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."

Is that a lie? Here we go around the Tutti-Fruiti Express again. You cannot refute the White House's own report so you do a Keystone Kops Kaper again. Anything but stand still and honestly respond to another uncomfortable fact. You know what we call people who cannot face reality and live as a legend in their own mind, an imagined reality of Disconnected Ideology? Nuts. Bonkers. Crazy.

Mr. Sheeple:

Well, you like to talk about "lies" regarding the Bush administration. How about the same applied to the Clinton administration that effectively set the stage for 9-11?

Lies, damn lies, Albright and Clarke

Sheeple Analyst:

I don't enjoy telling how the American people are lied to by their "leaders" whether Democrat OR Republican, but the truth is the only way to get a grip on reality. And why are you so scared of the truth? Will it show that your identity with the Bush Liars' Club is a farce built on massive ignorance and willful self-deceit? If you think I've been bragging about Clinton's clean hands and saintly smile you've been smoking something as you tootle around the track. Shifting the blame is not a very adult way to behave at your age. It's downright self-demeaning.

However, it is an interesting look at the way that Joe Farah's rag sometimes panders to the low self-image crowd searching for a daddy to show them how to tie their shoelaces. Still, Farah is much more straight forward than you are and much better informed. Consider his article, "The failure of government" from the October 19, 2001 WorldNet Daily in which he says,

During the Watergate investigation into Nixon administration corruption, a familiar question to witnesses was: "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

A good variation on that question more than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack is: "What did the government know and when did it know it?"

There's a growing body of evidence that those entrusted and paid by the people to know about threats indeed had some warning, but failed to pass it on to the public.

He wasn't yet talking about Bush, but he has to satisfy a lot of folks who need to uphold their ideology at all costs. Notice he wasn't blaming the previous government of Clinton.

Then there is that Republican career government official, Richard Clarke, who is corroborating what the CNN article reported about the White House Report on Terrorism in April 30, 2001. And Republican appointee, Paul O'Neill. And Sibel Edmonds. There are so many holes in this pot of lies that the froth is blowing all over the place.

You haven't come toe-to-toe with the statement by the Bush White House, yet. Why is that? No, instead we get the clown running around in circles, waving his arms, wagging his butt, dropping his drawers, stumbling over the bass drum, and jumping into his little red car. What a show! I suppose it's one way for sheeple to get their exercise.

Mr. Sheeple:

But conservatives aren't Sheehy's only critics. After publishing "Hillary's Choice" in 1999, a book on then-first lady Hillary Clinton, Sheehy faced a barrage of attacks for shoddy reporting. The Washington Post even created a section called "Gail's Goof Corner" to expose the inaccuracies.

The "Bush Liars" website you sent me was affiliated with www.moveon.org which is the rag tabloid of the Democratic party. Now, that rag tabloid employs Gail Sheehy known for plagiarism and other poor journalism is now a central part of that "guide book"?

Error-Prone Author Headlines New MoveOn.org Book

Sheeple Analyst:

Wow! You've gone daffy, dickie duck. I've not advocated Sheehy or her book or Moveon or the Democratic Party. Just noting a fact reported by CNN. Why don't you respond to the quote instead of doing clown cartwheels to misdirect?

If you feel the CNN report is wrong, go to a library and find out. Or file a FOIA to get the original report from your bush buddy at the White House.

Your silly tactic of dismissing a report because it is connected to the hairdresser's accountant's attorney who lost his bar license for serving too many highballs at the VFW convention sponsored by the Keystone Kops Klan....is such a stretch you surprised me. You won't do anything but prove yourself a foolish dolt for such illogic.

By that logic, NewsMax, WND, Townhall, Insight, and the other wild stories from beyond the Crypt should be burned at the stake on the solstice.

You must slay the fire breathing dragon at all costs, Gandor, or the kingdom will be lost! Even if you must sacrifice your children and your children's children to try to prove yourself the mighty warrior! You might earn a lifetime award for such a thrilling performance in the role of Mr. Sheeple #1. Thanks for the screamer for the Sheeple Analyst pages.

Mr. Sheeple:

".....most Americans still say President Clinton and his national security team "should be held responsible for the latest 9/11 controversy" - according to a U.S. News & World Report online survey."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/30/230633.shtml

Sheeple Analyst:

Now there is a brilliant idea! Determine the truth by finding out how many dumbed down Americans conform to the propaganda. No, Richard. You find out how successful the propaganda is by a poll, you don't find the truth. Do you even KNOW the difference between Ideology and the Truth?

Mr. Sheeple:

The FBI apparently had information that could have forwarned the U.S. of coming attacks using airliners as "flying missiles", but Mrs. Edmonds was hired as a translator two days after the 9-11 attacks to translate documents, so the warning was of little value until translated and provided to the government officials. At the time, the Bush administration was still working under the inept CIA and FBI inherited from the Clinton administration. Recent news stories have noted the still existant of a problem in finding a sufficient number of translators, so more will probably be coming out after the fact.

"Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514

"The information so far notes that attacks would be on cities with "skyscrapers". A Newsmax.com "Inside Cover" item of May 16, 2002 notes:"In testimony before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism in February 1998, Bojinka - which means 'big bang' - was described by Dale L. Watson, chief of International terrorism operations section of the FBI,m only as a plot to blow up numerous air carriers"! Nothing about crashing them into buildings. " It is possible that full details may not have been available until after the fact.

Sheeple Analyst:

I sure do wish for the sake of a rational conversation that you would read for understanding instead of a defense of your ideology. You would have noted that she was asked to retranslate documents that had been translated by others several months earlier. Hence, she is an eye-witness to what the government knew and when it knew it--before 9-11!! Even the most obvious facts escape the committed ideologue. Sheeple are people so dumbed down or numbed out that they will catch hold of the official ideology and identify so strongly that they cannot even see the train coming at them. They're still riding the Tutti-Fruiti Express trying to keep the truth at bay.

The Bush Administration is STILL employing Mueller and Tenet and Carl Levin is not around to object. How do you explain that? Can you EVER explain ANYTHING? Is it too painful to know the truth? Or is it too painful to admit that you've been lied to by your ideological idols?

I've had the Project Bojinka page published for over two years. If you had ever bothered to read it you would have found that Project Bojinka was exposed in January 1995 when Philippine police arrested and tortured Abdul Hakim Murad in a Manila apartment where bomb-making equipment was found. He told them of plans to plant timed explosive devices on 11 US airliners simultaneously, and to crash-land an airplane into CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Then you would have spared yourself the embarrassment of sloppy research and/or lying about the nature of Bojinka. The first two lines! Easy to be correct, but even easier to glibly toss out nonsense. Source: John Cooley, Unholy Wars, New York, NY, 2000, p. 247

Then your speculation "It is possible that full details may not have been available until after the fact" is easily demolished by the date of Cooley's book cited above. In addition, a full government report was published in the mid '90s. The Clinton Administration warning of the dangers of terrorism were ignored and according to the annual report by the White House on Terrorism in April 2001 described their de-emphasis on domestic terror by bin Laden.

You make it so easy to demolish your arguments because you haven't even looked at the evidence I have been gathering for nearly 3 years. You toss up your holey arguments and I merely have to point at the holes from the evidence on my pages and elsewhere.

Mr. Sheeple:: I suppose in your mind, this story is a fabrication by the Bush administration to "justify" the war in Iraq.

Iraqi officers describe Saddam-al-Qaida link: Detainees say contacts preceded 9-11, Saudis helped recruit, finance terrorists

Sheeple Analyst wrote:

The story is actually irrelevant. Show me the incontrovertible PROOF that "Arab terrorists" were even involved in hijacking planes on 9/11. Show me the proof that calls were made to Air Traffic Control identifying hijackers. Show me HOW such foreign agents would be able to keep the USAF on the ground for over an hour while four planes were seriously off-course and heading for restricted airspace. Show me the actual evidence we were promised following the Bush Administration allegations that make up an Official Conspiracy Theory. I wish to hear the authenticated cockpit conversations of the black boxes. I wish to hear the authenticated communications with Air Traffic Controllers. I wish to see the authenticated evidence that lead to the posting of the 19 ALLEGED "Arab hijackers." I wish to see the original CCTV tapes confiscated from around the Pentagon at the service station, the hotels, the Virginia road cams. I wish to see the authenticated records of the Flight Training School in Venice, Florida, confiscated by the FBI shortly after 9/11. You've accepted their ALLEGATIONS on NO PROOF. I have higher standards and I insist on higher levels of performance from the Bush Administration. Any stories about al-Qaeda are without value unless and until these rudimentary levels of proof are obtained.

Mr. Sheeple@f........... wrote:
Well, submit a FOI request and get them! What if the hijackers had boarded on assumed Western names, based on the premise they were adopted by American parents? Are you saying that the former Iraqi officers are lieing and do not know what they are talking about, though they were present and witnessed that which they relate but you were not? Apparently it has not yet occurred to you that the information will eventually be made public, but is logically witheld for a time for fear of tipping off other potential adversaries about what the government knows. During WW II, a lot of sensitive information was withheld for security reasons, and is only being released several years after the fact.

Sheeple Analyst wrote:

Oh sure, former Governor of NJ, Tom Kean, head of the current under-funded 9/11 investigation can't get information from the US Government; the Bush Administration has stonewalled at every possible opportunity.

Your hypothesis totally misses the point, as usual. Seven of the people the Bush Administration identified as the "Arab terrorists" are still alive and were apparently not involved unless you have a great cockamamie story to accomplish that. If they were not involved then clearly that part of the Official Conspiracy Theory is incorrect at best, a lie at the worst, leaving the rest of the preposterous story questionable and doubtful. Involvement of the Iraqis in what? Keeping the USAF on the ground for more than an hour or forcing them to fly at 25-30% speed toward the catastrophe in progress? How did Saddam do that? Millions of Americans are waking up to these anomalies and asking the questions the news reporters never asked.

I didn't say ANYTHING about the former Iraqi officers. Didn't need to. Their testimony is useless unless and until there is proof that al-Qaeda is involved. It's not my job to prove they were. The people who launched the Official Conspiracy had vowed to provide the proof and they never did. And dumbed down people across the country forgot all about that and have no awareness that proof was ever promised. They accept the word of the Bush Administration robotically as though Presidents and Government officials never lie, forgetting the lying of Bill Clinton that they got so worked up about, assuming that Dubya would be any different. Partisanship prevents their questioning their Leader (Fuehrer, auf Deutsch).

And, of course, the Government has no need to tell us about their proof because they have National Security reasons. More programming and more dumbing down. Pearl Harbor information is still top secret 62 years later. Can't be about the Japanese code. That's already ancient history. Can't be to keep radar secret.

Clearly, Americans are not to be allowed to have the information that they need to make their political decisions. The say-so of politicians should be good enough. Therefore, it is also clear that the American people are to do what their politicians, their party leaders, decree and vote on the basis of trust and propaganda. Our money reminds us otherwise. You would have made a good German in 1933. Hitler was talking about you and laughing.

"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them. "Adolf Hitler"

Now the grandson of the man who channeled American support for the ascendancy of Hitler through his position as managing director in the Union Bank, Prescott Bush, is in the same position. "But that's OK, if this were a dictatorship it'd be a heck of a lot easier......just so long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush on CNN.com, December 18, 2000. I'll bet he was just kidding, huh? click here to see the video clip

"The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective." Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited,1958

You can't see the walls of your prison. You clearly, obviously believe that you are free. Subjectively, that is so in your mind. I can't penetrate those walls no matter how much I shout, argue the facts, point toward the lies, offer help of any kind. You are your own projection: you are a legend in your own mind. May God be merciful to you.

Mr. Sheeple@f............. wrote:
If indeed the 9-11 attacks did not involve the Al Qaeda muslims vowing to destroy the United States and other Western nations as "infidels", as you have maintained, and France opposed the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to deal with the terrorist threat, why would France cooperate to cancel flights to LA that intelligence indicated may be hijacked by Al Queada people, one being a trained and certified airline pilot? Greater the number of people in on a conspiracy, greater the chances of a leak. Al Quaeda realize that, so only the top echelon people know the details about what is afoot in order to avoid leaks that give away the plot. It is therefore illogical to believe that 9/11 was some huge conspiracy and a coverup by thousands.RHB

Sheeple Analyst wrote:

There is no problem keeping even the greatest conspiracy secret when they can succeed in dumbing down and programming most of the population. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf before he took power. He did not have to hide his intent.

"What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think."--Adolf Hitler

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."--Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1923

"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them. "Adolf Hitler

Similarly, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion have been around a long time even before the latest rendition was published in Russia at the turn of the century. It's been attacked recently by Zionists claiming it's a forgery but their point fails to address the truth of the document. In the late 18th century the Bavarian police came into possession of similar writings when an Illuminati courier was struck by lightning. The warnings went out to the monarchies of Europe to beware. France fell shortly afterward and the lies are still being told today. England had already gone through its own "revolution" with Cromwell. Even knowing the means and methods, the control of Europe fell inexorably into the hands of the Illuminati. Franco only slowed its success in Spain.

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers .... The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth." Aldous Huxley Brave New World foreword to 1946 edition

You think of small conspiracies and cannot even conceive of the Grand Conspiracy. You cannot think that far outside of your box. The worldview you now hold has been programmed by movies and news controlled by the Illuminati. They've done exactly what they said they were going to do. But that was not part of the curriculum in your high school and mine, your college and university and mine, because thos