[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Feds Raid Alfie Oakes’ Naples Home and Farm with Battering Ram Democrats Have a New Leader: Kamala Is Out, Says GOP Strategist The Colorado Voting Machine Fiasco Trump Lawyer WARNS Letitia James, Vows RETRIBUTION After Trump Win: 'We'll Put Your Fat A** In JAIL' Tucker Carlson:11/7/2024 "now that Trump is president, i can tell you everything" Fear-Stricken Pharma Big-Wigs Convene Emergency Teleconference to Thwart RFK Jr. Judge strikes down Joe Biden administration program aimed at easing citizenship pathway for some undocumented immigrants CNN faces another defamation lawsuit after appeals court sides with Project Veritas These Hollywood Celebrities Swore They'd Leave America If Trump Won All Talk, No Walk Blaze News original: Border Patrol whistleblower's career on the line after spotlighting trafficking horrors Dems open can of worms by asking about millions of 2020 Biden voters who somehow disappeared in 2024 Deadline: US says Israel failing in aid efforts. What happens now? Kash Patel, Rumored Pick for CIA Chief, Announces Massive Declassification Will Occur Hezbollah unveils ‘Fateh 110’ ballistic missile in targeting Israeli sites Pentagon running low on air-defense missiles as Israel, Ukraine gobble up remaining supplies An Open Letter To Elon Musk Is this why Trump was allowed to win? This Is The Median Home Price In Each US State Alex Soros Shocked That the Incumbent Political Order Is Being Crushed Around The Globe Beverly Hills Lawyer Disbarred Two Years After Admitting He Paid a Ringer to Take the Bar Lumumba: 'I am not guilty, and so I will not proceed as a guilty man.' Lauren Boebert Wins House Election After Switching to More Conservative Colorado District AIPAC Boasts of Influence Over Congress, Ousting 'Eleven Anti-Israel Candidates' Police Searching for 40 Escaped Monkeys After Mass Breakout from South Carolina Research Facility "You Don't Deserve Any Respect!": Steve Bannon Goes Scorched Earth On Democrats On Election Night Livestream Putin's ready to talk now that the mentally ill homosexuals have been brushed aside Trump, the Economy & World War III: Col. Douglas Macgregor Ex-Top Official Catherine Austin Fitts: Inside Trump’s Victory, RFK Jr., and the Deep State 10 Big Losers That Weren't On The Ballot Elon’s first day working for the Federal Government

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: What became of War?
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 20, 2009
Author: me
Post Date: 2009-04-20 21:38:39 by Critter
Keywords: None
Views: 3126
Comments: 167

Ain't seen that shilly dimwit for a bit. Did he get canned for inferior shilliness?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 66.

#1. To: Critter (#0)

he's licking his wounds at LP.

litus  posted on  2009-04-20   21:57:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

he's licking his wounds at LP.

He's going to wear his tongue out. He got lots of wounds here. hehehe

Critter  posted on  2009-04-20   22:08:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

He's going to wear his tongue out. He got lots of wounds here. hehehe

lolol!!

O_I, FL, TT, and many others got him "but good".

fofl!

litus  posted on  2009-04-20   22:10:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

O_I, FL, TT, and many others got him "but good".

He didn't have a whole lot to say about those 660+ engineers and architects who question the 9/11 report. In fact, since it directly and absolutely proved his assertions wrong, it appears he put his tail between his legs and ran off.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-04-21   8:24:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

He didn't have a whole lot to say about those 660+ engineers and architects who question the 9/11 report. In fact, since it directly and absolutely proved his assertions wrong, it appears he put his tail between his legs and ran off.

No, he hasn't, has he?!

litus  posted on  2009-04-21   10:03:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why would I overweight what less than 1% of the total of their combined fields have to say versus underweighting the OVERWHELMING majority... Gee 600 out of 100K...

war  posted on  2009-04-21   10:39:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why would I overweight what less than 1% of the total of their combined fields have to say versus underweighting the OVERWHELMING majority... Gee 600 out of 100K...

Got some firm numbers on that shillster, or are you just pulling that 100K figure out of your ass as usual?

Post some proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

I won't hold my breath.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-04-21   11:54:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

(war) Post some proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

Support your claim war.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2009-04-21   12:46:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Post some proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

How many enginners are there?

war  posted on  2009-04-21   13:20:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Post some proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

How many enginners are there?

Proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2009-04-21   13:22:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The proof is on this thread, moron. There aren't even 600 of them who object to it...

Math is an issue with you?

war  posted on  2009-04-21   13:26:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The proof is on this thread, moron. There aren't even 600 of them who object to it...

Proof? What, your question as to how many engineers are there in the world is supposed to be PROOF? You don't have ANY proof of how many approve of the 9/11 Commission findings, you just made up a number and tried to say there is that many because there MIGHT be that many in the world, and since they haven't publically made a statement concerning their thoughts, well then by gosh they must agree with the official story. What a dishonest cretin you are.

As far as your comment that there aren't even 600 who object to the 9/11 Commission findings, you are a liar, as the proof of that has been posted to you at least twice here on 4um.

Here it is again so that you can't say it wasn't posted, AGAIN.

660+ Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-04-21   21:36:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.

But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation."

- David A. Johnson

Just off the top of the list: 660+ Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect – Member, American Institute of Architects. A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Speech at Sonoma State University 4/20/07:

"Another 2006 poll by Scripps Howard, Ohio University, which found that a shocking 16% believe that the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. Unfortunately, my research has also concluded that this is true. Tonight I will present to you the very clear evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives." http://ae911truth.org/aboutus.php

David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University. Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2004). Past President of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Recipient of five Fulbright Scholarships for continued education in Cyprus, India, Thailand, and the Soviet Union. Directed educational projects in Brazil and Portugal. Active in reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and bicommunal peace-making in Cyprus. Former professional planner on the staffs of the Washington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York. Former editorial board member of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Author of numerous journal articles on urban and regional planning theory and history. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988). Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues.

So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.

When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.

Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.

What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.

But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation." http://www.ae911truth.org

H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch, AIA – Practicing licensed architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP). Professional photographer. Letter to American Institute of Architects 11/26/06:

"The primary duty of registered professionals is to protect the public safety. Professionals' intelligence, knowledge and experience provide a delicate connection between science and fact. ...

9-11 was a tragic event for our country, quickly “solved” by our government and propagated by our media, leading our country into fear, anguish, anger, war and unrestrained spending.

Have we, as building professionals, been hoodwinked? Who should better understand the collapse of the World Trade Towers than those in our profession, possibly with the consultation of demolition experts?

As I and millions have reviewed the events of that day, it seems much of the cover story is not true and impossible. As the nation is confused on the reality of that day, have we been making bad decisions ever since?

My web site collects salient information that isolates the demise of the World Trade Towers – linking many experienced, dedicated and articulate technical analysis that show clearly that the World Trade Towers were destroyed by internal explosives and not "fires from the airlines". ...

After hundreds of hours of research, and thousands of dollars purchasing materials and information, this letter outlines my most salient, articulate examples of things that architects should investigate. If I err slightly in any single item, that does not discount this letter. On the contrary, even if only part of these accusations are true, they should be investigated." http://www.abodia.com/911

randge  posted on  2009-04-21   21:58:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

There are 125K enginners in the professional organization that assisted both FEMA and NIST in the 9/11 report. Furtermore, that same organization, used the 9/11 report to formulate standards that would try to immunize buildings from the type of damage and catastrophe that occurred on 9/11.

Based upon the silliness that I have seen out of you Moonbats, I really do not expect you to see how stupid it is to point to barely 600 out of 125THOUSAND...

war  posted on  2009-04-22   10:00:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#94. To: war, randge (#66)

There are 125K enginners in the professional organization that assisted both FEMA and NIST in the 9/11 report.

Prove it. And what exactly is an enginner anyways? Does he sweep the floor for ENGINEERS?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-04-22 13:28:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

DEBUNKING THE 911 OMISSION REPORT:

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation:

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI - Mr. Cole worked for 18 years in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division as an Intelligence Operations specialist, and was in charge of FBI’s foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr. Cole had knowledge of certain activities that directly related to the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. He notified the 9/11 Commission during its investigation, but never received a response. His name and contact information was provided to the Commission as a key witness by other witnesses, but he was never contacted or interviewed.

John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. Vincent worked for the FBI for 27 1/2 years before retiring in 2002. He worked his last 8 years in counterterrorism in the FBI’s Chicago Field Office. Mr. Vincent, along with Robert Wright, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases, and certain warnings they had tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Although he was granted an interview, the commissioners’ investigators refused to let him provide them with information related to his case and the 9/11 terrorists network; they insisted on limiting the interview to only administrative and irrelevant questions and issues.

Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. Wright is a veteran special agent in the FBI Chicago Field Office Counterterrorism Unit. He had been investigating a suspected terrorist cell for three years, when he was informed in January 2001 that the case was being closed. Agent Wright, along with Mr. Vincent, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases and certain warnings they’d tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Three months before September 11, Wright wrote a stinging internal memo charging that the FBI was not interested in thwarting a terrorist attack, but rather "was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred." The FBI refused to allow Wright to testify before the 9/11 Commission, however, the Commission did not insist or attempt to subpoena Wright; despite the fact that it had subpoena power.

Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI - Ms. Edmonds worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Turkey, Iran, and Turkic speaking Central Asian countries. She contacted the 9/11 Commission in May 2003 and requested a meeting to provide them with information directly related to the terrorist attack. The Commission investigators refused to meet with Edmonds and informed her that due to their limited resources and time they were not going to interview all witnesses. She was able to provide the commission with information and documents only after certain 9/11 family members intervened directly. Ms. Edmonds’ testimony was completely censored by the Commission.

Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI - Mr. Sarshar worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing Farsi translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Iran and Afghanistan. He had first- hand information of prior specific warning obtained from a reliable informant in April 2001 on the terrorist attacks of September 11. Mr. Sarshar contacted the Commission directly but was refused. He was given an interview with the Commission investigators only after 9/11 family members intervened directly. Mr. Sarshar’s documented testimony was completely omitted from the commission’s final report, despite his case being publicly confirmed by Director Mueller’s Office.

Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. German served sixteen years as an FBI Special Agent and is one of the rare agents credited with actually having prevented acts of terrorism before it became the FBI's number one priority. He contacted the Commission in the spring of 2004, but did not receive a response. In 2002 he reported gross mismanagement in a post 9/11- counterterrorism investigation, which included serious violations of FBI policy and federal law. Mr. German contacted the 9/11 Commission during its investigation and requested that he be given an interview session in order to provide them with certain domestic counterterrorism investigations that he’d pursued. According to Mr. German there were links between certain domestic and international counterterrorism related to the September 11 attacks. The 9/11 Commissioners refused to acknowledge his request and never interviewed him.

Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI - Mr. Graham worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office Counterintelligence Division until 2002. In February 2004 his name and contact information were provided to the Commission as a key witness with information pertinent to the Commission’s investigation. The 9/11 Commission refused to follow up and never contacted Mr. Graham.

Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI - In May 2002, Coleen Rowley, as the Division Counsel at the FBI Minneapolis Office, blew the whistle on the FBI’s failure to pursue Zacarias Moussaoui’s case prior to 9/11, despite all attempts made by the Minneapolis division counterterrorism agents. She reported that FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and neglected to take action on information provided by her division. Despite her high-profile case the commission chose not to interview Ms. Rowley. According to Ms. Rowley, no one from the FBI Minneapolis Office (several Agents had direct information) was ever asked to provide testimony, information, to the 9/11 Commission.

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA - Colonel Shaffer provided the Commission with detailed information on intelligence and pre warning information obtained by his unit’s data mining project, Able Danger. The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from Mr. Shaffer and his former team members, yet did not pursue the case, did not follow up on this documented report and refused to subpoena the relevant files. Mr. Shaffer’s testimony, together with other witnesses who corroborated his testimony and information, were censored by the 9/11 Commissioners and never made it to its final report.

Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF- Mr. Stoltz, a veteran undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, had played an important role in Operation Diamondback between 1998 and 2001. The sting operation involved a group of Middle Eastern men living in New Jersey who were caught on tape in an ATF weapons sting conspiring to buy millions of dollars of weapons including components for nuclear bombs. The case came to a screeching halt with the arrest of only a handful of suspects in June of 2001 even though there was ample evidence that some of the people who were attempting to buy these weapons had connections with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden himself. The 9/11 Commission refused to contact Agent Stoltz despite all attempts made by several witnesses from the intelligence & Law Enforcement Communities, and the 9/11 Family group, Jersey Moms.

Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA - Mr. Dzakovic had worked for the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration since 1987 as a Special Agent, as a Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshals, and from 1995 until September 11, 2001 was a Team Leader of the Red Team (terrorist team). Mr. Dzakovic had tried for several years prior to the 9-11 attacks to improve aviation security in the face of the ever-increasing terrorist threat. He provided the 9/11 Commission with his testimony and documented reports. His testimony and report to the Commission was completely omitted from the final report.

Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA - Ms. Lewis worked for 13 years evaluating and coordinating federal, state and local preparedness for nuclear, radiological and chemical weapons emergencies. Prior to September 11, 2001, she had reported numerous inadequacies and dysfunctions in emergency preparedness, including a culture of intimidation that discouraged federal evaluators from reporting inadequacies in state and local plans and preparedness. USDA officials had thwarted her efforts to bring in terrorism experts to help the agency prepare for attacks on federal buildings, including bio-weapons attacks such as the anthrax attacks of 2001. In vain, she had urged FEMA officials to develop a national emergency communications plan and require interoperability of federally funded emergency communications equipment. In the absence of these preparations, New York City firefighters and police officers were unable to communicate critical information on September 11 at the World Trade Center. Ms. Lewis contacted the Commission and offered to provide information regarding dysfunctional government preparedness, but the Commission never responded.

Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA – Mr. Burton served as an all-source threat analyst in NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate (IAD) for most of his 16- year career. He was the editor of IAD’s premier threat document; the 300+ page ISSO Global Threat Summary, and was an adjunct faculty member at NSA’s National Cryptologic School. He provided dozens of pages of relevant information to the 9/11 Commission, but was completely ignored and never asked to testify.

The above list does not include many others from the intelligence and law enforcement communities who had similarly contacted or reported to the commission but had been either turned away or censored, and of course many others’ who are still working within these agencies and are fearful of making their identities known, due to the relentless pursuit of and retaliation against whistleblowers by government agencies.

CREDIBLE CRITICS OF THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce” Jan. 14, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up" Jan. 5, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed" Dec. 13, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" Dec. 4, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up" Sep. 23, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

That's a few of the 170 senior military/intelligence/governement challengers. Add them to the 660 architects and engineeers, 190 pilots/aviation professionals, 370 professors and 290 survivors/family members who challenge the government account.

How you can continue to believe the 911 Omission report is beyond me.

abraxas  posted on  2009-04-22 14:13:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Based upon the silliness that I have seen out of you Moonbats, I really do not expect you to see how stupid it is to point to barely 600 out of 125THOUSAND...

Only 600 or so Protestant pastors in Germany stood up publically against Hitler and the nazis. The rest of the crowd got into line.

While membership in the majority or the minority of opinion in respect of any given issue is not necessarily dispositive of the rightness of one's views, those in the minority are generally stronger in their convictions, particularly when their views are unpopular - moreso when there is nothing to gain by publishing unpopular views, and indeed when there is even something to lose.

randge  posted on  2009-04-22 16:54:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]