I doubt that any of the anti-war left encourage blowing up buses. Instead, they support the right of Iraqis to defend their homes and families. It is utterly ridiculous to expect these people to be shot at and not shoot back.

Think back 230 years. America was being occupied by a foreign military. There were many "insurgents" (who were later called "founding fathers" and "patriots") who participated in organized acts of rebellion (i.e. Boston Tea Party) and guerilla warfare. I'm sure many tories "stayed the course" and "supported their troops."

I am happy to see Saddam out, and hope that MF fries. At the same time, American rule isn't much better. Compared to the number of deaths we've caused, it seems like Saddam wasn't even trying. Bush supposedly brought democracy to the Iraqis. Well, there's at least 100,000 Iraqis, mainly women and children, he didn't bring democracy to, unless "democracy" is the new rightist codeword for "death" and "mutilation."

However, I personally do not support the plight of terrorists. Defending your family and home from invaders, that's heroic. Showing up just to shoot at Americans, not quite so heroic. I believe they have the right to fight for what they believe in; just as we attacked to change the morals of the world, they aim to do the same. If you wish to stop their attacks, maybe take the time to understand why they're so pissed at us. Our lack of tolerance of muslim and arab culture is one of the reasons they hate us. Maybe if we actually pulled our collective head out of our collective ass and tried to understand instead of shooting first, maybe if we stopped enacting policy designed to rape the people of the middle east just so that a few rich bastards could become richer, maybe they wouldn't have a problem with us, maybe they would stop taking hostages and blowing up buildings. It seems logical to me... but hey, I'm probably wrong just because I'm on the far left.

To reiterate, I do not support taking hostages. I do not support the killing of American troops. But we shouldn't act so damn surprised when hostages are taken and troops are killed on foreign land.

Clerical correction, Carleton Armstrong drove a truck up to Sterling Hall because there was a military installation located there. Army Math labs.

Lastly, Casey talks a lot about how people are wrong. Well, Casey, that's your opinion. My opinion is that you're wrong. One man's rational is another man's irrational. I do agree though that we shouldn't play sides so much. It's pointless to protest something because it's the work of a side. A robot could do that. Humans develop unique points of view. Robots do what they're told. If Kerry dragged us into Iraq, of course much of the left would support it, and the right would oppose it. We as individuals need to start standing up for what we believe is right, and stop standing up for what rich-ass party leaders want us to believe.

I am not sure what your message is here. I suppose, "Both sides need to stop being simpletons" is the best you can do, given your limited reasoning and the increase of personal attacks in your recent articles.

So, I want to discuss a few points of contention. What evidence do you provide that supports that Pam Holschuh is a "lefty"? Since when is she the voice piece for the left? The best evidence you can muster that the "far left" needs to chill out is "450 naíve, ill-informed and conspiracy-crazy UW students" attendended a speech about 9/11. How are they on the "far left"?

Secondly, Casey, you make a nice effort to continue to tie Iraq to 9/11. Repeatedly, this connection has been proven to be nonexistent. They are two different issues, as noted in the 9/11 commission report, try to stay on topic. "Really, then where did the 64 passengers on flight 77 go?" It appears you think they are in Iraq, remember the terrorists were passengers as well.

Thirdly, if we are to hail the Iraqis who voted and be appalled by the insurgents, what evidence do you have that no insurgents voted? Should we support their right to vote the US out? Is this treasonous?

Fourthly, you mention that the right has to abandon the black and white rhetoric. This coming after you chastise Pam for supporting the resistance in Iraq. In fact you claim this support is treasonous. Does practice what you preach mean anything to you?

Fifth, you claim there are successes in Iraq. Feel free to point these out. Obviously, you feel that the vote in Iraq was historic, etc. However, what did this historic vote accomplish? Who did they elect? They really did not vote for anything, and the results were merely garnered for a proportional share of the powerless parliment. Did the Iraqis vote for the President and prime minister? The party with the most votes in Iraq ran on a platform of getting the US out of Iraq. However the US still controls all the important ministries and won't relinquish control even though the Iraqi government wants what is theirs. In the end, Iraqis are being played against each other, and are not being allowed to govern themselves, the reasons for this are still unclear. Can you say, "racism", anyone? What proof do you have, Casey, that says the Iraqis cannot govern themselves, besides that they are helpless Iraqis? By the way, care to comment on the Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq? Why is the US building schools with big targets on them, and not guarding weapons? Perhaps these questions are too complicated for you.

Some say that the US shouldn't pull out of Iraq, because it would be embarrassing to the US. However, these individuals fail to really understand why it would be embarrassing. In essence, they admit that the US is wrong, but that we should continue as if no one noticed.

Furthermore, you state, "All Americans should be hoping and praying for democracy and success in Iraq". However, you fail to say why? What Americans should be hoping and praying for is that the US is not attacked again. So far, there is little evidence saying that we are better protected, perhaps you should interview the militia patrolling our border if you doubt me. Too bad this isn't an election year, because we would at least be able to know what terror alert color we are currently at.

Also, please explain how democracy will prevent terror. Did democracy prevent 9/11? Did democracy prevent Carlton Armstrong's attack? Perhaps you have some grand understanding about democracy, too bad, you don't seem to want to share it.

In the end, you seem to believe your spin or at least the spin of the talk shows you try to copy like a simpleton. If you stopped pushing Bush's failed doctrine, perhaps your show would be worth listening to, of course, you would have to stop abusing it to chastise individuals, as well. I could go on, but I feel as though you may cry, keep hope alive, yada, yada.

LOSER! Stop talking and writing, please.

Good article, Mr. Hoff...

Three more weeks and we will be mercifully spared from Hoff's columns and that horrible picture. His radio show is on life support too. Life will be good.

His radio show really stinks. I don't think the student station would have him, which shows you how lame 1670 is...

Hey asshat! Are you seriously condemning this article for having personal attacks in it while telling the author he has no reasoning skills and calling him a simpleton?
You sure have all the answers.

There is definitely something fishy going on with 9-11. Not pre-planning maybe, but perhaps some sort of complicity at the very least. These questions should be answered:

The PNAC (Condi, Wolfowitz, Cheney) said that they needed "another Pearl Harbor" and they got it? Coincidence?

Why did the Pentagon plane make a 270degree turn while descending 4000 feet (a fighter pilot couldn't do this) to hit the only unoccupied part of the pentagon?

Why won't the gov't allow us to see the security footage they confiscated from buildings near the pentagon?

Why did one plane take down a whole WTC building but the same model plane left windows unbroken and the building mostly intact at the pentagon?

Why was the US conducting military exercises that simulated this exact same kind of attack on 9/11?

Why were no fighter jets scrambled when 143 times in the previous year jets had been scrambled for small private planes?

Why did Bush go into the school to read MY Pet Goat AFTER seeing the first plane strike "on TV"? (Which is impossible on regular nonCIA Tv at least since there was no footage)

Why was it the New York FAA directors first day on the job on 9/11?

Why did WTC building 7 fall? There was barely a fire in the thing and certainly not the superheated jet fuel that people say caused the other buildings to collapse?

Why did all the WTC buildings fall exactly in their own footprints-like ones that had been demolished with explosives?

Why were the devout Islamic fundamentalists partying with strippers and drinking the night before? Doesn't seem consistent with that kind of fanatic...

How did the governement immediately have names of hijackers even when some of them are acknowledged to now be alive in other countries?

Why was the debris whisked away so quickly after the attack?

I could go on, but won't. There is definitely something fishy, extremely fishy going on here and at the very least the gov't should explain what the hell is going on with all these things. They owe us that it seems to me...

Wanted to add: I am not targeting REpublicans perse-the DEms are equally sulpable in this lack of answers though since the Reps are in office they are the ones that are directly withholding info.

Thankfully, extreme centrists aren't dangerous. They just host crappy radio shows.

sulpable. nice

typos: those things trolls criticize when they have nothing to add to the conversation.

Even the BBC, that noted Republican party shill, ran a nice story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4420933.stm

Here's Saad, 32, sound engineer from Basra: "Iraqis are feeling better. They are breathing the air of freedom. They read, watch and say what they want. They travel, work and receive a living wage. They use mobile phones, satellite dishes and the internet, which they did not even know before... As for terrorism, we are now beginning to unite against it and to defeat it."

Noura, 32, computer engineer from Baghdad and a Christian: "While we lost security after Saddam's fall, we gained our freedom and a chance to build a new society."

Nada, 32, government worker from Mosul: "We never imagined that the Turkmen community would have a political party representing them in Iraq, but this is happening now."

Kaban, 31, electrical engineer from Baghdad: "There have been many changes since the fall of Saddam's regime, but the most important change was that we feel free... However, those who say that security was better in the past are completely wrong. It is true we did not have suicide car bombings in Saddam's era, but our homes did not feel safe from the intrusion of Saddam's security men, who came in the middle of the night to kidnap, kill or rape."

Waala, 25, schoolteacher from Baghdad: "The Sunnis in Iraq do not live in isolation from the political and social circles of life, as many people outside Iraq seem to believe. Nothing has affected our relationships with each other - we face the same problems. This applies to Sunnis or Shia, Christians or Muslims, Arabs or Kurds. Unfortunately, the refusal by some Sunnis to participate in the elections was the cause of some political isolation."

Imad Mohammed, 25, university graduate from Baghdad: "I am no longer worried about losing my dignity or my life. And I am also getting a higher income, like most Iraqis."

To the douchebag wearing the tinfoil hat asking the questions:

American 77 didn't make a 270-degree turn in which it descended 4,000 feet; it turned 330 degrees and descended only 2200 feet.

It didn't collapse like the WTC because it's made of solid brick.

The best part about you fucking conspiracy freaks is that none of you live in D.C. None of you has ever talked to any Arlington County Firefighters who responded (I have) nor did you live 2 miles from the Pentagon when it happened (I did). None of you has spoken with people who were sitting on 395 watching a 757 circle insanely (I have).

Do yourselves a favor and stick to commenting on things about which you have some sort of clue, or go shoot yourself in the head.

More for you conspiracy nuts:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Way to take a stand Hoff. Why don't you actually get a point and maybe people will listen to you. Although you would still write like a douche bag so I guess you're just screwed.

"another Pearl Harbor"

9-11 will be "another Pearl Harbor conspiracy" for a whole new generation of wing-nuts.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-04,GGLD:en&q=%22Pearl+Harbor+conspiracy%22

"To the douchebag wearing the tinfoil hat asking the questions:

American 77 didn't make a 270-degree turn in which it descended 4,000 feet; it turned 330 degrees and descended only 2200 feet."

So? What does that prove? Why am I a douchebag for asking questions? Is that illegal under Patriot 2? Please note that I didn't say anything was planned. All I said is that there are quite a few questions that need answering. If the gov't answered the questions, then the conspiracy theories would go away.

"The best part about you fucking conspiracy freaks is that none of you live in D.C. None of you has ever talked to any Arlington County Firefighters who responded (I have)"

Really? Did you also talk to the two firefighters who were supposed to testify that something strange had happened and then were put on "permanent leave" before the interview ?

"go shoot yourself in the head."

This really makes your point seem credible. Congratulations on confirming every stereotype out there. Why not go bomb some babies or attach electrodes to a prisoners testicles to make yourself feel better?

It seems reasonable for the government to answer questions about 9/11 since your foreign policy of killing women and children is based on the (completely ludicrous) notion of "self-defense" because of these "attacks". Unforunately with brainwashed, flag waving boobs like yourself running around your country is going to shit fast and hard.

The pentagon was not hit as the official story says. Take a look yourself:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

"Why not go bomb some babies"

-Can we seriously end the 'go bomb babies' line. It is completley ludicrous and YOU KNOW IT! Support the war or not, the United States is not deliberatly going out of its way to murder innocent bystanders. Yes it does happen, there are casualties of war, but WE ARE NOT DOING IT ON PURPOSE. Is anybody perfect, no. Are the bombs always going to be accurate, no! But dont for one second believe the United States' Foreign Policy doctrine is to kill women and babies. I am so sick of this comeback. True, the "go shoot yourself in the head." line was out of line, but you do yourself your own shame with the go bomb babies line. So you yourself are just as low and immature as the other guy.

-Can we please get new arguments on these message boards, its the same posts over and over again?

To the fuckwad conspiracy theorist:

You are not a fuckwad for "asking questions", you're a fuckwad because of the questions you answer: They're all conspiracy-theory crap that has either been explained through evidence or little snippets of information that are taken out of context and mean nothing on the larger scale.

Nearly everything listed on the 911research.wtc7.net website is debunked in the Popular Mechanics article.

It's fine if you want to hate Bush - I don't like the guy either. But don't let your hatred of him turn you into a fucking raving lunatic.

Yet, We are bombing women and babies and the elderly and innocent civilian men. Iraq is a humanitarian disaster. At least 21 thousand civilians have been killed. This is the confirmed number not an estimate...
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Do you honestly think that none of their relatives are going to hate the US and try to attack us? If you beleive the official story please remember that it only took 12 to blow up the WTC. It seems to me that at least 12 relatives of the 21 thousand that have been killed might be angry enough to try something else.

We cannot fight terrorism by killing all the terrorists off. Every time we kill someone, terrorist or no, in Iraq. We give Osama his best possible recruiting tool.

I meant it's the questions you ASK that make you a douchebag.

ALL of the questions have been answered. Have you read the 9/11 commission report? Or do you simply dismiss that out of hand, I bet?

The main question on the 911research.wtc7.net website website is how AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon in just over a half hour when it was in southern Ohio at approximately 9 AM. Obviously the webmaster has never flown into Reagan National from the west. Over southern Ohio is when they tell you that you are now 1/2 hour from landing and so must stay in your seat. I've done it probably 20 times now. Just after you pass Cleveland, you have to sit down. I guarantee you a normal flight to Reagan is going slower than the hijacked AA 77 was.

Why does the government need to answer that question then, when anybody who has the slightest clue about the time it takes to get from near Pittsburgh to DC knows it takes less than 1/2 hour?

Again, put a bullet in your head.

Again, put a bullet in your head.

Dude if your IP address can be tracked on here this comment could land you in jail.

The original "conspiracy poster" said:

"Not pre-planning maybe, but perhaps some sort of complicity at the very least."

and the response was:

"To the douchebag wearing the tinfoil hat asking the questions"

Is this really necessary? The guy didn't say the he believed the conspiracy theories just that he thought there was something strange going on. I for one, agree with him, though I think that it is more likely that the Bush administration is covering up their incompetence than that there was any mass conspiracy.

Then we have people telling each other to kill themselves? Why all the anger? Why not simply say: Theose conspiracy theories sound attractive but most have been disproved in this Popular Mechanics article...

Wouldn't that be a more effective way to get your point across instead of calling names and telling people to shoot themselves? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

To the guy who told me to go "put a bullet in my head". Why not put some info in yours?

Here is the reposnse to the PM article:

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.
"The Lies Are Out There"
James Meigs, appointed editor of Popular Mechanics in May 2004, trashes skeptics of the official story of 9/11/01 as irresponsible disgracers of the memories of victims, apart from "we as a society."

This article has a page of Editor's Notes, "The Lies Are Out There," written by James Meigs, whose previous columns have praised military technology (such as the UAVs used in Fallujah). Meigs places outside of society anyone who questions the official version of events of 9/11/01:

We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. ... Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists.

Meigs throws a series of insults at the "conspiracy theorists," saying they ignore the facts and engage in "elaborate, shadowy theorizing," and concludes his diatribe by saying:

[T]hose who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.

Besides trashing the skeptics, and conflating "this country" with its corrupt leaders, Meig's piece attempts to legitimate PM's "investigation." It reads:

We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by the conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood, or deliberately falsified.

This sounds impressive, but the article provides no evidence to back up these claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few "experts," who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.

Moreover, glaring errors in the article -- such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 -- don't inspire confidence in PM's "professional fact checkers." It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up....

REst of article at: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

And I bet you think that the world is going to explode in a year too right? It takes a real nut job to actually believe that planes hit the WTC buildings and they collapsed because of it...or to dispute that the claimed plane even hit the Pentagon. Hmmmm got to love some of you.

BTW...how could the poster above get in legal trouble for telling someone to put a bullet in their head? He never threatened to do a thing, and there isn't even evidence to lead you to believe he would do it even if he said he would. Kerry/Edwards 04!

I didn't say that anything about the poster who wants me to shoot myself getting in trouble.

I don't see why it is so crazy to think that Bush and friends might have had a hand in allowing this to happen or helped it along. I have never said that I beleive that the buildings were destroyed using explosives, nor have I said that planes didn't hit the towers. All I said is that it seems like an amazingly coordinated feat for 12 guys to pull off simultaneously and that the Bush Admin has not allowed the public to see any evidence or tapes from security cameras. If everything is on the up and up, why all the secrecy? Why hide all the evidence? Why destroy audio and video tapes?

The people would be more behind them if they could prove their case definitively.

No, the only reason to hide things is because there is something to hide.

Maybe the evidence that people want to see has other things that the public cannot see? I guess it just seems more reasonable to upset the few who "need" to see it, instead of releasing other things that could lead to worse information becoming available that may hurt us even more later. I have no idea why they wouldn't release tapes, but I would also like to believe(and I know many wouldn't) that if it were possible for us to see these things safely that we would be allowed to.

You did not refute ANYTHING in the PM article except to note that it is owned by the Hearst Company.

You say it provided "no evidence to back up any of its claims". Umm, hello, it named the people on whom it relied for its claims. It told not only their names but their positions. That sounds kind of like evidence to me.

You don't even bother to refute the evidence I myself provide: the first claim on your tinfoil-hat website is that the 767 couldn't have gotten to the Pentagon in a half hour from Southern Ohio. I told you it easily could have, you ignore that.

Have you ever flown into DCA (which is about 3/4 of a mile from the Pentagon)? I've flown it from Milwaukee several times. Every time they give the warning about sitting down for the final half hour, we are just past Cleveland, Ohio.

Can you refute that? It's the first claim on your website, so you'd think it must be kind of important.

Do I think the idea that Bush did this is crazy? Yes, I do. First of all, I know a lot of people who work in the military, the CIA, the State Department, you name it. None of them thinks it'd be possible for such an incredible conspiracy to be kept secret for very long. Second, the left likes to bash Bush (for good reason) for being a moron. Could a moron mastermind such a conspiracy? I doubt it.

If you want to bitch about the incompetence of the Administration, then go ahead, there is good reason to do it. But be at least moderately honest and include the fact that institutional culture in our intel agencies was and still is so fractured that it wouldn't have mattered if the great Al Gore himself were President, the information probably would have gotten missed (if you think Bush created said culture, you're an idiot and need to turn off the computer right now). Be honest and realize that our government rarely if ever reacts to a problem before it happens and therefore there was ZERO contingency plan for such an event and that, despite vague warnings of terrorists taking flight training, the idea that a hijacked plane would be used as a missle was laughable up to September 10, 2001. That is why the process to report the hijacked planes was so inefficient, that's why so few aircraft were ready that morning, and that's why they were sent over the Atlantic Ocean.

I'm looking at the Pentagon out my window right now. What are you looking at, the Orpheum?

By the way I also saw the security film footage from Dulles Airport a week or so after 9/11. It was on the local news here in DC.

The biggest problem with all the conspiracy theorist is that there has been plenty of answers to your questions, you simply ignore or try to discredit the sources that have provided the answers. On a campus and in a city that likes to complain about where Republicans get there news and info, I'm amazed at how many lefty's Ive talked to and listened to who have a much more limited and biased approach to gathering information. We would all be better off if more people from all political spectrums would broaden their sources of info. As someone who has voted for rebuplicans, democrats, and independents who currently leans republican I do listen to Air America and more times than not I disagree with the host, i do not assume they are lying. Which i strongly beleive is the opposite approach the lefty's and progressives in madison take toward news sources they tend to disagree with. Either there lying or they have no credibility, why do they have to be like that? The one idea brought forth above is that the insurgents are fighting for their family and their country. What about all the Iraqies that are fighting along side the American forces, if your premise is the insurgents are fighting for a good and just cause then you have to feel the iraqies that are fighting with us are somehow fighting against there family and countries. By the way there are many,many,many more Iraqi people fighting for us and many,many,many less fighting for the insurgents. How would you explain this?

Adding to above comment, I know i have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, how many of you Michael Moore fans, lefty's and progressives have taken the time to watch FahrenHYPE 9/11?

The conspiracy theory is that 12 hijackers working on their own brought down the WTC. That is the conspiracy theory. It's just the one that the government has sold you.

To the above guy who is so mad and seems to think that living in DC makes him an authority. Why not read the whole article I posted before telling me I didn't refute a single claim?

There are clearly signs that the surveillance video that was released is fraudulent. All I am asking for is the truth and before you label me a nut job. more than half of the people in NYC think that Bush had some foreknowledge and 66% of them want the matter re-opened for investigation.

Don't try to peg me as some whacked out conspiracy guy. More than half the people in the city that was targeted agree with me.

Mostly I find it sad that people find the anonymity of sites such as this a suitable cover to act like complete assholes.
Make reasonable arguments, and leave the childish insults on the playground.

Asking questions and questioning the bias of responses is quite reasonable. "Believing" a conspiracy theory and suggesting one are two different things.
For me, it is the fact that the motivation of this administration can be questioned on so many levels -- and it can be questioned, I assure you -- is the frightening part. We should have no doubt of our leaders' intentions. But I, and lots of other reasonable people, have found lots of reason to doubt -- from their greed to their bizarre beliefs regarding the Apocalypse, there are dangerous factors at work.
Bush may not be the next Hitler, but a lot of people didn't believe Hitler was all bad until it was too late. Suppressing questions will not serve anyone well but those who intend the worst.

I appreciate an attempt to criticize extremism, which, of any color, invariably has a simplistic outlook.
What seems to be missing is a realization that one can agree that resistance is a reasonable concept, though members of that resistance may act in ways we find abhorrent.
At the same time, we may agree with the US's reasons for being there, but we must be very critical of the actions of many of the soldiers there in support of our policies.
Viet Nam was not so long ago. The unspeakable acts of many soldiers at that time do not make every soldier who served a monster. It does force us to more closely inspect the motives for US use of force.
Likewise, many of us have suspicions about our role in Iraq. There is no question that much has been done there already of which we should not be proud. Ultimately, surviving Iraqis would be better off with a representative government. But our tactics and the bloodshed we have directly caused and the treatment many have received at the hands of US forces are shameful. That many see these acts as reason to resist is not surprising; it is only the misdirected brutality of the resistance which we can reasonably question.
Our position, it should be noted, would be better justified if we could claim no atrocities on our part, which I fear we cannot.

Let's all call the poster who drummed up all those 9/11 conspiracy theories Mr. Mulder.

Idiots.

DC guy here.

It obviously doesn't matter what I say. Anything I offer you will simply dismiss as "fraudulent", based on evidence that is "clear".

You refuted NOTHING in the PM article, you simply asked more questions and then made the blanket statement that the article had no evidence.

*Yawn*

You could at least pretend to have noticed my refutation of your website's claim that you can't fly from S. Ohio to DC in a half hour.

Let me guess, those warnings to sit down were "fraudulent", and the Defense Department put holographic images over my windows to make me think I was flying over Cleveland.

You're an idiot.

Yeah, thanks for raising the level of discourse, "Idiot."

DC guy once again...

Frankly for anyone who's ever paid attention to the airline industry, it IS easy to believe that 19 hijackers (and it was 19 NOT 12...if you can't even get correct how many individuals were alleged to be involved, how on earth are you informed enough to comment on anything??) who did a little planning were able to hijack four airliners simultaneously and take them over.

1>Airline security sucked. It was perfectly legal to take box cutters on board (in fact thanks to lobbying by hunters and fishermen, you could take full-out knives on board with blades shorter than something like 5 inches). Screeners were poorly trained and unmotivated. Intel agencies did not share information with one another.

2>It is not that hard to time the hijackings. Simply following the timetables, using a little geography and math is enough to time the hijackings to strike simultaneously.

3>Pilots and crew were taught SPECIFICALLY befre 9/11 to give in to hijackers and let them land the plane, since every hijacking in history involved landing the plane and using passengers as hostages to leverage demands. Did you know that, or was it not included on www.iamadouchebagwhothinksheknowseverythingfromthecomfortofmylivingroom.org ?

Just admit it - you hate George W. Bush, and probably America enough that you cannot possibly accept any explanation that does not involve his and the military's complicity.

You're worse than an idiot, you're a closed-minded extremist. And that's why I advise suicide.

There is no elevating the discourse with people who simply dismiss every piece of information, available for 4 years, as "clearly fraudulent".

DC guy

1) I never said that I beleived conspiracy theories. I said that there are legitimate reasons to ask for more evidence and there is a good deal of evidence that some things are being covered up.

2) What I said are "clearly fraudulent" are the security tapes from the parking garage facility outside the Pentagon. Why do I say they are fraudulent? Well for one thing they have the WRONG DATE on them. For another there is no plane. For another the plane is too small to be a 747.

This doesn't mean that planes didn't crash etc. It simply means that Bush is trying to cover something up. They knew something and possible purposely let it happen. There are loads and loads of inconsistencies in all the so called "facts" that you have presented me with.

I would also question an article written by someone who is a clear backer of the Bush admin. I am not saying he is purposely lying, but like you, he sees what he wants to.

Again I will repeat. I have not called names in this discussion and you have repeatedly. All I ask is that the governement answers these questions. If the answers are so clear, and I am so dumb, why won't they give us the audio and video tapes they have confiscated?

Why are some of the "hijackers" alive in other countries?

Are you really so naive as to think that the gov't might not have allowed this? Look at the stuff they are doing all over the world!

They are hiding something. That's all I am saying and all I ever said. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but unlike you I am willing to listen to all sides. These people with thes sites are citizens too and it seems to me that they have a right to get their questions answered.

Here is why they won't beleive you my questioning comrad: http://tvnewslies.org/html/refusing_the_9_11_evidence.html

People let's stop fighting amongst ourselves and focus all of our energy on hating Hoff.

Amen to that.

Government Insider Says Bush
Authorized 911 Attacks
From Thomas Buyea
9-17-4

Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff.

Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole (R) and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people.

The following is from his latest visit to Alex Jones' radio show.

Forwarded with Compliments of Free Voice of America (FVOA): Accurate News and Interesting Commentary for Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free.

Note: All honor to Stanley Hilton for risking his life so that we may know the truth of 9/11.

The Bush Junta Unmasked

"This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder." --Stanley Hilton

Alex Jones interview of Stanley Hilton, attorney for 911 taxpayers' lawsuit

Alex Jones Radio Show September 10, 2004 Transcription by 'RatCat'

AJ: He is back with us. He is former Bob Dole's chief of staff, very successful counselor, lawyer. He represents hundreds of the victims families of 9/11. He is suing Bush for involvement in 9/11. Now a major Zogby poll out - half of New Yorkers think the government was involved in 9/11. And joining us for the next 35 minutes, into the next hour, is Stanley Hilton. Stanley, it's great to have you on with us.

SH: Glad to be on.

AJ: We'll have to recap this when we start the next hour, but just in a nutshell, you have a lawsuit going, you've deposed a lot of military officers. You know the truth of 9/11. Just in a nutshell, what is your case alleging?

SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.

AJ: That's right. They were all Straussian followers of a Nazi-like professor. And now they are setting it up here in America. Stanley, I know you deposed a lot of people and you've got your $7 million dollar lawsuit with hundreds of the victim's families involved.

SH: 7 billion, 7 billion

AJ: Yeah, 7 billion. Can you go over some of the new and incriminating evidence you've got of them ordering the attack?

SH: Yes, let me just say that this is a taxpayers' class action lawsuit as well as a suit on behalf of the families and the basic three arguments are they violated the Constitution by ordering this event. And secondly that they [garbled] fraudulent Federal Claims Act, Title 31 of the U.S. Code in which Bush presented false and fraudulent evidence to Congress to get the Iraq war authorization. And, of course, he related it to 9/11 and claimed that Saddam was involved with that, and all these lies.

AJ: Tell you what, stay there. Stanley, we've got to break. Let's come back and get into the evidence. BREAK

AJ: All right my friends, second hour, September 10th, 2004, the anniversary of the globalist attack coming up tomorrow. It's an amazing individual we have on the line. Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political scientist, a lawyer, he went to school with Rumsfeld and others, he wrote his thesis about how to turn America into a dictatorship using a fake Pearl Harbor attack. He's suing the U.S. government for carrying out 9/11. He has hundreds of the victims' families signing onto it - it's a $7 billion lawsuit. And he is Stanley Hilton. I know that a lot of stations just joined us in Los Angeles and Rhode Island and Missouri and Florida and all over. Please sir, recap what you were just stating and then let's get into the new evidence. And then we'll get into why you are being harassed by the FBI, as other FBI people are being harassed who have been blowing the whistle on this. So, this is really getting serious. Stanley, tell us all about it.

SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It's not just incompetence - in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress-rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, "seen on television the first plane attack the first tower." And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government-ordered thing. We are suing them under the Constitution for violating Americans' rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress to justify the bogus Iraq boondoggle war, for political gains. And also, under the RICO statute, under the Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt entity. And I've been harassed personally by the chief judge of the federal court who is instructing me personally to drop this suit, threatened to kick me off the court, after 30 years on the court. I've been harassed by the FBI. My staff has been harassed and threatened. My office has been broken into and this is the kind of government we are dealing with.

AJ: Absolutely and now it has come out - five separate drills of flying hijacked jets into buildings that morning - which you told us about before it even broke in the Associated Press. They were trying to get out ahead of you. You talked about how you interviewed military people who were told it was a drill that morning. Then to get out ahead of that, the news finally reported on it. Now, we've learned that all these operations - I want to get into that, I want to talk about the new incriminating evidence of ordering it and how they had drilled on this, how Cheney was in the bunker controlling this. That has even come out in the mainstream news but they won't release the details of that, Stanley. But what type of FBI harassment are you going through? SH: First of all, my office was burglarized in San Francisco several months ago. Files were gone through and some files were seized - particularly the ones dealing with the lady that was married to one of the hijackers. Fortunately, I had spare copies in a hidden place so nothing disappeared permanently. But more significantly, FBI agents have been harassing one of my staff members and threatening them with vague but frightening threats of indicting them. And it's just total harassment. They have planted a spy, an undercover agent, in my organization, as we just recently discovered. In other words, these are Nazi Germany tactics. This is the kind of government you have in this country. This is what Bush is all about.

AJ: Stay there, Stanley, Bob Dole's former chief of staff. We'll come back after this quick break. Please stay with us. BREAK

AJ: All right, eight minutes, 25 seconds into the second hour. Stanley Hilton, political scientist, lawyer, Bob Dole's former chief of staff, is suing the government for 7 billion dollars for carrying out 9/11 and for racketeering. And he joins us now. During the break, I first really did the big interview with Stanley Hilton after I saw him attacked on Fox News. And that interview got massive attention. And then he kind of went underground for a while because a judge, we're going to talk about that, ordered him to not do any more interviews. And now he's back doing interviews. He's had his office broken into, FBI threats and harassment. Bottom line, he has deposed military individuals, wives of hijackers, you name it, it was a government operation. It has even come out in mainstream news, a piece here, a piece there. They had drills on 9/11, that's why NORAD stood down. Cheney was in control of the whole thing. Stanley Hilton has now gotten documents about how Bush ordered the whole operation. And I'll tell you right now, his life is in danger, folks. And he's got so much courage. He went to school with these neocons at the University of Chicago. He wrote his thesis on how the government could use terrorist attacks to set up martial law. He is the man for the time and folks wondered why he disappeared for a while and just did his lawsuit and wasn't doing interviews, it was because he was ordered to. Stanley, can you get into that for us?

SH: I did an interview with you, Alex, back in March of 2003, about a year and a half ago, and literally two weeks after that, I was contacted by the emissary of the chief judge of the federal court where I have the lawsuit. And I was warned not to publicize it but to keep it quiet and threatened with discipline. And it remained quiet until a couple of months ago and then I got on the air on some programs and some publicity and July 1st, I was threatened directly by the chief judge here, threatened with court discipline. This particular judge has been circulating communiqués to the other federal judges seeking anything negative she can get against me to try and discipline me after I've been on the court here for 30 years with no disciplinary problems at all. This is suddenly happening. And her assistants who are on the committee of the court met with me on July 1st in Palo Alto, California, and threatened me directly. They handed me a copy of the lawsuit and said that the judge wants me to dismiss this. What's this? She doesn't like the content of it. This is politically incorrect. This is outside the norm. I said I represented more than 400 plaintiffs, how am I going to dismiss this case? And they threatened me directly and they said, "the next time you'll be disciplined." And also they've threatened me not to go public, etc. And this is just outrageous.

AJ: It's all color of law. No direct orders, just all in your face.

SH: They sent a letter out, and of course they deny it's because of the political content of the suit but they told me directly on the phone that it is because of this suit and this judge is very, very angry, apparently has been in contact with Ashcroft's Justice Department. I got a call from Ashcroft's Justice Department a few months ago about this, demanding that I drop the suit, threatening sanctions and all kinds of things. I refused to drop it. AJ: Now let's go back over, you had them break into your office, harassment. Let's go over that in detail.

SH: My office was broken into about 6 months ago. The file cabinets - it was obvious they had been rifled through. Files were stolen. Files dealing with this particular case and particularly with the documents I had regarding the fact that the - some of these hijackers, at least some of them were on the payroll of the U.S. government as undercover FBI, CIA, double agents. They are spying on Arab groups in the U.S. And, in effect, all this led up to the effect that al Qaeda is a creation of the George Bush administration, basically. That the entity that he called al Qaeda is directly linked to George Bush. And all this stuff was stolen. Fortunately, I had copies. But this was just part of the harassment. The FBI has also been harassing some of my assistants and has planted a spy in our midst. And it is just outrageous that these Nazi tactics are being used - and the obstruction of justice, these people are criminals. And that's what's happening under the tremendous pressure here to just drop it. Or to shut up now and just go away.

AJ: Now, let's talk about what they want you to drop. Let's talk about, without giving names, the people you deposed, what really happened, the picture you've got. You said earlier that Bush ordered this, they were simulating this which they now admit there were simulations on that morning. Let's go over what they don't want you to talk about, Stanley.

SH: We have evidence both documentary as well as witness sworn statements from undercover former FBI agents, FBI informants, etc., that other officials in the Pentagon and the military and the Air Force that deal with the fact that there were many drills, many rehearsals for 9/11 before it happened. Bush had seen this simulated on TV many times. He blurted this out at a press conference in California a few months after 9/11 where he said he had, quote, seen the first plane hit the first building on the video. And that's not possible because there was no official video of that. There was one of the second plane not the first one. He had seen the first one. We do have some incriminating documents that Bush personally ordered 9/11 events. It was well planned. A FEMA official has admitted on tape that he was there the night before - September 10th, that is

AJ: And now Mayor Giuliani, a few months ago in the 911 Commission, admitted that - Tripod II. They had their whole command post already moved out of Building 7. Now, this is very, very important. This is a key area of this whole event. You said months before it came out on the CIA's own website and the Associated Press, you said I deposed people. They said there were drills that morning and exactly what happened, happening - that was the smoke-screen for the stand-down. And then to get out ahead of it, the CIA comes out and said yeah we were running a drill that morning. Now, we've learned that five, possibly six, were confirmed. Five of these - one drill with the exact same thing happening that actually happened, at the exact same time in the morning. That's why NORAD stood down with 24 different blips on the screen. You've said this. You brought this up first. Now, I know you can't get too much into detail but can you tell us how you learned of this?

SH: I have interviewed individuals in NORAD and the Air Force. I personally toured NORAD many years ago around the time that I worked for Dole. I'm very familiar with the operations at Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado Springs, where NORAD is. Individuals that work in NORAD as well as the Air Force have stated this, off the record, but the point is, yes, this was not just five drills but at least 35 drills over at least two months before September 11th. Everything was planned, the exact location

AJ: But five drills that day.

SH: That day, that day, and Bush thought it was a drill. That's the only explanation for why he appeared nonchalant

AJ: We also had NORAD officers and civilian air traffic controllers going, "Is this part of the exercise? Is this a drill?"

SH: Yes.

AJ: On the tapes and in TV interviews, they thought it was, quote, a drill.

SH: That's right. That's exactly what I said long before it became public. I've known about this since earlier in March of '03, as I stated before. This was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder. And now, obstruction of justice by attempting to use a federal judge and FBI agents to inhibit a legitimate civil lawsuit in this country, in federal court. Even a chief judge in this court tried to harass and threaten me personally for representing legitimate plaintiffs. And they got Clinton for allegedly lying under oath about Paula Jones and now - look what's happening now. And Ken Starr used to be across from me in Duke Law School in the early `70s and it's interesting that he got away with trying to get Clinton impeached, so we have a far worse criminal sitting in the oval office today - somebody guilty of mass murder as well as obstruction of justice.

AJ: Well, I mean look, they say they never heard of a plan to fly planes into buildings - said it all over television - Rice, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft. And then we find out they were running all these drills that morning. Even if they weren't involved, that proves they were liars about ever hearing of such a plan.

SH: Well, I'm trying to take their depositions - I've been trying to take their depositions for months. They've been trying to object to it. They will have to admit they were either lying then or now. It's clearly perjury either way. They are liars and perjurers; that's what they are. These are the people that we have running this government and, of course, they knew about it. How are they going to claim now that they didn't know about these drills? Their idea is that nobody knew anything. It's the old know-nothing mentality. And how anybody considers this believable is beyond me.

AJ: All right, now people ask how could a huge organization, how could the AWACs, how could the military let this happen; whereas before, if your Cessna got off course for five minutes, they would launch F-16s on you. It's real simple. It's what Stanley Hilton said here a year and a half ago. It's what came out in the news after that. The military, good people, were told this was all a drill. And it was not a drill. And ABC News admits that Cheney was in control of [?] out of the White House [?] and that he ordered the military to quote "do something." Our inside sources from Hilton and others say it was a stand down and they admit they will not release that under national security. Stanley?

SH: Well they are going to admit it, they're going to release it in the court case because if you demand it under subpoena powers and they must release it. And part of our lawsuit is brought in the name of the U.S. because under the federal fraudulent [Claims Act], we accuse the Bush Administration of presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress. And under the statutes of Title 31 of the U.S. code, they must release this information. That's why they are trying to threaten me, harass me, invade my office, steal my files, commit blatant obstruction of justice and other crimes to try and prevent a legitimate civil suit from exposing these criminals and their acts of treason and mass murder.

AJ: I think you need to publicly tell folks that you are not planning suicide. Would you like to tell folks that?

SH: (laughs) I'm not planning suicide. I've got family and I'm not planning that but I don't like the threats I'm under - but I can tell you this, it's taking a toll emotionally on me and my staff. And particularly, when you get a threat from the chief judge of your own court.

AJ: Why have you decided to go public again after a year of being under the radar? SH: Because the more and more evidence that I've been adducing over a year and a half has made it so obvious to me that this was now without any doubt a government operation and that it amounts to the biggest act of treason and mass murder in American history. I mean George Bush makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot. He makes Benedict Arnold look like George Washington. I mean that's what we have - a criminal and a traitor sitting in the White House pretending he's a patriot, wrapping himself in the flag. And it's pretty disgusting because the other side of the so-called opposition, the Kerry camp is just saying nothing because they're afraid to speak.

AJ: Stay right there. We'll be right back.

BREAK

AJ: Stanley Hilton will be with us for another 15 or 16 minutes. Then he's got to go into court. Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political scientist, lawyer, represents 400 plus plaintiffs - most of them victims of 9/11. When I was in New York last week, everybody I was talking to, I mean 90 plus percent of them at ground zero - "I had family, I worked in the buildings, my son's a Navy Seal - he called the night before and said don't go to work." You know, all of this, and then now they never had any idea - and it turns out they had all these drills - and one drill of hijacked jets flying into the World Trade Center and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning. That morning - come on people! And Stanley Hilton brought all this out on this show before it was in the mainstream news. And I was talking to him during the break. I mean, the harassment, the moles, the threatening of his staff, the judge threatening him. Stanley, let's get specifically into the documents that you have now got that they have now been robbing you for, that you luckily, thank God had copies. Specifically, Bush ordering this. Can you get into that for us - ordering 9/11? SH: National Security Council classified documents which [garbled] and it's was part of a series of documents that were involved with the drill documents. This was all planned - they had it on videotape. These planes were controlled by remote control, as I stated previously a year and a half ago, there's a system called Cyclops. There is a computer chip in the nose of the plane and it enables the ground control, the military ground control, to disable the pilot's control of the plane and to control it and to fly it directly into those towers. That's what happened. It's also a technology used on what's called the Global Hawk, which is an aircraft drone - a remote- controlled aircraft. And they were doing it. We are talking about National Security Council classified documents that clearly indicated that [garbled] had a green light to order this to go and this is no drill. These drills that were running were clearly a dress rehearsal and this was a government operation. You wonder why these people are trying to threaten people and trying to intimidate people who have written this suit, I guess if you murdered 3000 of your own citizens, in conjunction with the corrupt Royal family of Saudi Arabia as Bush did. And if you then waste billions more on a worthless garbage war in Iraq, I guess you've got something to worry about and you want to threaten people to prevent it from coming out.

AJ: I mean let's look at this. Not only are there dress rehearsals, they are smoke screens so the good military stands down and doesn't know what's happening. But it's now coming out, even in mainstream news, that yes these drills were going on. Yes, and some of these drills, quote, passenger-type jets were under remote control - this is decades old technology. In 1958, NORAD was [ ] old jets and using them for target practice. Decades ago they flew jumbo jets from LA to Sidney Australia. So since that's going on, everybody knows that. And it's the same MO. Just like the first World Trade Center [bombing] where they get two retarded men who followed this blind sheik who had a tiny mosque above a pizza parlor. And they set them up as the patsies. Then the FBI cooks the bomb, trains the drivers. This informant goes, "You're not going to bomb the building? They go "Yeah, we're letting it go forward." He tapes them to protect themselves. The two retarded gentlemen, thank God, didn't park it up against the column, as the FBI instructed them to do, so it didn't bring down the tower - because you have to be right up against the column. That doesn't happen. Yet, it's the same thing with 9/11. You've got these CIA agents, these Arabs, who were trained at U.S. military bases, Pensacola Naval Air Station - mainstream media, out creating their legends for this background. They're on board the aircraft. My military sources say nerve gas kills everybody on board the plane - nerve gas packets. Then they fly the planes into buildings. From your inside sources, is that accurate?

SH: It's one of the things that we are looking into - that nerve gas or something else disabled people. It's possible. I can't say for sure to be honest with you

AJ: All you know is they were government agents and they were on board and the planes were remote controlled.

SH: Yeah, it was basically a smokescreen. I mean, the events of the hijackings, how someone snuck in those cutters, it was a plant. It was like a classic decoy. I've got some military background. And it's called decoy. It's a decoy operation. You make the people focus on the decoy to avoid looking at the real criminals. So they are focusing on these so-called nineteen hijackers and saying, "Oh, it must have been these Arabs. When, in fact, the guilty person is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - sitting in the oval office. That's the guilty person. That's the one who authorized it. There is only one man who could have authorized this operation and that's Bush. And anyone at NORAD will tell you as I have been told personally at NORAD in the war control room, there is only one man who has the power to do this kind of thing and that's Bush. Even though many believe he's a puppet. And I think in many ways he is. The fact of the matter is where was [ ] Cheney, Rumsfeld and these other traitors. The fact is Bush personally ordered and he's guilty and liable and he's going to be re-elected apparently because the media's asleep and [garbled] for Bush. AJ: Well, the media is owned by the same military industrial complex that carried out the attacks.

SH: Yeah, the media is only interested in maintaining the official government fantasy that this was a little lone Arab. These Arabs couldn't even steer that plane down a runway.

AJ: Stay there Stanley, final segment coming up. BREAK

AJ: Mr. Hilton, when you talk to these FBI agents, when you talk to these military men and women, what's their attitude? They've got to be pretty freaked out to have the big picture and know what actually happened on 9/11.

SH: Yes, you know it's like clouds just before a thunderstorm in the sense that they are sort of pregnant with rage. They are just enraged at the criminal politicians who have perverted and misused the government to murder its own citizens and pursue these dubious political ends. And many of them, in increasing numbers, are willing to talk and will talk under subpoena - but only under subpoena because the official party line of the government is shut up and don't talk to the trial lawyer. But more and more, they are very outraged that part of the government has done this to its own people, to its own people. I mean you have to go back to Stalin to see something - not even Hitler did this to his own people. You have to look at Stalin who murdered the Kulaks, the Russians for his own dubious gains. Also we've got - we have a Stalinist mentality in this country. And, if these people pose as patriots and wrap themselves in the flag, it's disgusting. I wanted also to point out that the Japanese television network, Asahi, is going to be airing a special on primetime tomorrow, on September 11th. They interviewed me for eight hours a couple of weeks ago. I'll be on that. I wish - of course, the America media don't care so they are not going to care. But in Japan, people are very serious in interviewing me and others. And we have a website now, called deprogram.info, if more people are interested: www.deprogram.info. But the other thing, I just wanted to say that if anything happens to me - and I don't know why - because I'm being threatened here now. And it seems you can't bring a case in this country anymore against criminals in power without being threatened. And this is how they operate. The stakes are pretty high when you've got a world historical level of treason and fraud by this government against it's own people. I guess this is what you have to expect.

AJ: Stanley, the globalists, the new world order crowd, definitely intend to carry out more terror attacks. I know they would have carried out more attacks if we wouldn't have done what we've been up to, if you wouldn't have been out there boldly speaking out and many others. And then their electronic Berlin wall has a bunch of cracks in it now. Thanks to good people like yourself and many others who are speaking out and telling the truth. But do you think that they may carry out what they've been hyping - a suitcase nuke attack, a biological release to try to smokescreen all of this? I know it's a catch 22, you've got to expose the murderers. We've got to get the word out on this but some government people that I've talk to say, "Yeah, but if you do that, they are going to go even more hard core and must totally try to take over." But I say regardless, they are already doing that. So what do you say to that?

SH: Well, yeah, I think they have an agenda. They have contingency plans. I think they are laying low now because there are an increasing number of people, like myself, who are openly challenging them and accusing them of criminal conduct. I think they would have done it again if we had not spoken up. I think they're planning, what they would like to do is silence any dissenters. That's why we are trying to get the Patriot Act declared unconstitutional in this lawsuit also.

AJ: Let's talk about polls. In the beginning a patriot is a scarce man, hated and feared, but in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him, because then it costs nothing to be a patriot. You are one of those guys who hit the barbwire for us, or figuratively jumped on the hand grenade for America. But when you've got a Zogby poll, who is highly respected, half of New Yorkers believe that the government was involved. When you have a Canadian poll, 63% on average believe that the U.S. government was involved. And some groups, as high as 76% in polls believe the government was involved. European polls, two- thirds show the same thing. We have German defense ministers and technology ministers and another member of their government now, three of them going public, known conservatives, and progressives. You have an environment minister, Michael Meacher, saying that if they didn't do it, they sure as hell knew what was going on. Look, if anybody who is a thinking person looks at the evidence, their official story is impossible. Then you investigate and they are involved in it. Comments to this massive awakening and what's happening.

SH: Well, I think that's why they want the Patriot Act to suppress political dissent. They have to, they're anticipating, they are not dumb individuals. I know these people personally, Wolfowitz. These are criminal individuals but they are smart and so they anticipated political dissent. And that's why, like the Nazis, their forebears, and their blood brothers, the Nazis and the Stalinists, they're all for political repression. Every corrupt and criminal government has done this - they suppress their own people: Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Mao Tse-Tung, that's why we have the Patriot Act. So it's hand in hand. They had it planned to go right up to September 11th, this was all part of the plan. You have to do it. It was part of my senior thesis. You must follow through the terrorists attacks with a political suppression mechanism in the law. And that's why they want Patriot I and Patriot II and their plans are to continue launching more terrorist attacks to justify even more repression. The goal is to make this a one party dictatorship in this country, to pursue their dubious ends with their blood brothers like the Saudi Royal family. And also, historical blood brothers, such as the Nazi Germany and the Communist Russian. That's the goal

AJ: You've got to go in just a minute or two. But I wanted to also tell you about New York. Sound cannons that are used in Iraq, they're against us. Men in black ski masks. 41,000 police, accredited media being arrested randomly. Children being arrested, people in wheelchairs, 2000 plus people put in a camp with barbwire fences inside with no bathrooms. You had to have permission to go to the porta-potties. Police screaming at you. It had nothing to do with terrorism. They are openly setting the precedent for martial law.

SH: Well, that's right, the word terrorist is now being overly broad and overly defined [garbled] and also, you know, it's like the word communist was used for anything during the McCarthy witch hunt. And anybody can be called a terrorist by Bush's definition. But the irony is that the number one terrorist in the world is living at the White House at the oval office today. That's the real irony. For sheer hypocrisy, I think he deserves the world prize and ought to be in the Ripley book, Believe It or Not, and the Guinness book of world records for sheer brazen chicanery and fraud.

AJ: Let me ask you a question on this because this is the experience that I had. Watching television, watching the killers, watching those that are guilty, stand up there as our saviors is incredibly painful. It's like watching Ted Bundy being the judge at his own trial. I mean it is just painful to know who these people are. To see them putting America in a shredder. Now we are going to have forced psychological testing of every American, forced drugging, you know Pan-American unions, I mean it's just all happening, it's in our face, Stanley.

SH: Yeah, it's very disturbing and as one who has studied the theory and concept of dictatorships, I personally interviewed Albert Speer, who was Hitler's armaments minister. I interviewed him in 1981 in Munich. And I've studied the psychology and history of totalitarianism and there is no question that it's very frightening. And it has, today, with high technology, albeit for the first time in history, the chance of having a world empire dominated by corrupt, technologically oriented government - an elite government. And they've got now what people like Napoleon and Hitler didn't have, which is the technological means to dominate not only their own country but others - the world.

AJ: The answer is to expose them as the terrorists, to show how PNAC [Project for the New American Century] said we need helpful Pearl Harbor events, to show how Northwoods called for the exact 9/11-style attacks, to show their own plans. And to force people to face this horror. What are they going to do in a year or two when 80% of us, not half of us, know the truth?

SH: Well, that's why they want repression and, then again, the ancient old diversion, launch another terrorist attack to get people to pitch it away. I mean who knows what they'll do next. I mean their capacity for ingenious creation of these events is sort of unraveled. I mean there is no limit. My guess is they are going to try another stunt - maybe a stunt just before the election to justify getting Bush reelected. Although it seems like he is running against a straw man or a ghost right now, anyway. But, my guess is they'll try some other tactic to get people's attention away from 9/11 if it gets to be too much attention. What you really want is for the public to just lose interest because the public - and it's like remember the Alamo, you know, people don't forget things like that. To me it's like the Alamo, remember 9/11, that ought to be the slogan for this outrageous act of treason. That's what it is. It's not

AJ: We are at a crossroads, I don't think they anticipated this much resistance, Stanley.

SH: Yeah, I hope they are truly wrong and as incompetent as they are corrupt and guilty. That means their incompetence is exceeded only by their corruption and their guilt. And eventually, if enough people are going to get outraged enough, these people in the bureaucracy and in the civil service and our military, and eventually we can get people under subpoena these individuals will be exposed.

AJ: Stanley, their whole operation hinges on us being naíve and not recognizing evil. This is what they got with Hitler and others. People couldn't recognize evil so they continued to repeat succumbing to it. We are recognizing it this time. We are putting our lives, our treasure, our future on the line for freedom because we cannot let these blood-thirsty control freak terrorists capture us and use us and turn us into the empire and have a draft and use us as their slaves to invade the planet. And that's their PNAC plan. Stanley Hilton, I know you've got to get to court. God bless you. I want to thank you for being here with us today. Can we get you back on next week?

SH: Sure, just give me a call.

AJ: God bless you my friend. Any closing comments?

SH: My closing comments would be, I think people ought to just think about the consequence of having someone like Bush in the White House and the danger for the future that these sorts of individuals pose. This is not just a historical event of the past. This is part of the plan and the camera is still rolling. They have an agenda. These individuals are extremely dangerous. They are armed and dangerous. They pose a clear and dangerous threat to every freedom-loving person not only American but in the whole world.

AJ: You are absolutely right Stanley Hilton. They have captured the government. They have not captured the peoples' minds and they are counting on us not facing up to it.

SH: And they are counting on the repressive Patriot Act and threats and chief judges and FBI agents threatening people who are exposing them. That's what they are counting on.

AJ: But you're not backing down are you, my friend.

SH: No, I'm not

AJ: Well, we all stand with you, my brother, and God bless you.

SH: All right. Thank you.

christ, Don't write so much (or copy and paste). Your lenght or responses are repulsive and I refuse to read them because I have somewhat of a life. Please just summerize your arguments and make them interesting to the reader.

Stanley Hilton, a San Francisco attorney and former aide to Senator Bob Dole, filed a $7 billion lawsuit in U.S. District Court on June 3rd. The class-action suit names ten defendants, among whom are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Norman Mineta.

Hilton's suit charges Bush and his administration with allowing the September 11th attacks to take place so as to reap political benefits from the catastrophe. Hilton alleges that Osama bin Laden is being used as a scapegoat by an administration that ignored pressing warnings of the attack and refused to round up suspected terrorists beforehand. Hilton alleges the ultimate motivation behind these acts was achieved when the Taliban were replaced by American military forces with a regime friendly to America and its oil interests in the region.

Hilton's plaintiffs in this case are the families of 14 victims of 9/11, numbering 400 people nationwide. These are the same families that rallied in Washington recently to advocate for an independent investigation into the attacks. The current 9/11 hearings are being conducted by Congress behind closed doors, a situation these families find unacceptable.

Mr. Hilton, by filing his lawsuit, has joined the ranks of an ever-increasing body of Americans who subscribe to what they call the LIHOP Theory. LIHOP stands for Let It Happen On Purpose. The LIHOP Theory puts forward the accusation that Bush and his people allowed the September 11th attacks to take place, despite the fact that they had been repeatedly warned of an impending strike.

The LIHOP Theory is straightforward: In the months before 9/11, American intelligence agencies received ominous warnings from the intelligence services of nations like Israel, Russia, Egypt and Germany. These warnings were pointed - an attack involving hijacked aircraft and prominent American landmarks was imminent, our security forces were told. Bush himself was briefed of these warnings weeks before they happened. Instead of responding vigorously to these warnings, the Bush administration and its security apparatus did nothing.

LIHOP is, of course, the purest breed of conspiracy theory, involving high-ranking members of government from both parties, as well as the CIA, FBI and NSA. Like all good conspiracy theories, LIHOP is surrounded by disturbing facts and bits of evidence that are difficult to ignore.

The warnings from all those foreign intelligence services, after all, are quite real. Egypt, Germany, Russia and the Israelis were vociferous in their concerns. The German intelligence service BND told US and Israeli intelligence that Middle East terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." The BND's information came through Echelon, the American-controlled network of 120 satellites that monitors all worldwide electronic communications.

Egypt voiced similar warnings that same month regarding aircraft attacks. Delivered just before the G-8 summit in Genoa, Egypt's alert carried such weight that anti-aircraft batteries were placed around Columbus Airport in Italy. The Russians warned the US that same summer of 25 pilots who had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself delivered the warning "in the strongest possible terms" to the US government. The Israeli intelligence service Mossad delivered a warning to both the FBI and the CIA detailing "a major assault on the United States" against "a large-scale target" that was "very vulnerable."

The Washington Post has reported that the NSA intercepted two messages on September 10, 2001, warning that something was going to happen the next day. "Tomorrow is zero hour," was one of the messages. The NSA's charter is to intercept, translate and pass on to FBI and CIA operatives important electronic signals from all across the globe. The Echelon satellite network which provided the German BND with their 9/11 information last June is part of that system.

According to the NSA, the September 10th data was not translated until September 12th, but it stands to reason that they were privy to the same electronic data the other foreign services were using as the basis for their warnings. One US intelligence source claims the data provided "no actionable intelligence," a fair claim given the vagueness of the messages and the volume of material NSA must deal with. Yet in combination with the strident foreign intelligence warnings, the words intercepted by our large electronic ears on September 10th add to the growing questions.

Then, there are the threads. A FEMA official told Dan Rather that the disaster agency had been at the World Trade Center on September 10th. Why? Governor Jeb Bush of Florida signed executive order #01-261 on September 7th, putting his state's National Guard on heightened alert status, essentially placing Florida under martial law for no demonstrable reason. Why? Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial aircraft in the weeks before 9/11, something he had commonly done since his entry into the administration. Why?

At the core of the LIHOP Theory lies motivation - what possible purpose could be served by the Bush administration allowing a terrorist attack to take place on American soil? It is flatly inconceivable to most Americans that Bush and his people could demonstrate such callous disregard for American lives, and accusations that they allowed an attack to happen reek of the worst kind of poisonous partisan politics.

LIHOP Theory, however, is not so easily dismissed. Two French intelligence analysts, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, have published an extensively-researched book entitled "Osama bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth." In it, they allege that the Bush administration put energy policy before national security concerns. According to Brisard and Dasquie, a foundering pipeline project aimed at exploiting natural gas reserves along the Caspian Sea in Turkmenistan was revived by the Bush administration when it arrived in Washington in January of 2001.

The pipeline project, which sought to bring oil and natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to a warm water port, had been the brainchild of American petroleum giant Unocal for much of the 1990s. After the destruction of two American embassies in Africa in 1998 by Osama bin Laden, the Clinton administration forbade any American companies from doing business with the Taliban, which had been sheltering bin Laden in Afghanistan. Unocal's pipeline project was frozen.

After the Bush administration came to power, Brisard and Dasquie allege that reinvigorating the pipeline project became a high-priority matter of policy. Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca was dispatched to Pakistan to discuss the pipeline with Taliban officials in August of 2001. Rocca, a career officer with the CIA, had been deeply involved in Agency activities within Afghanistan. According to documents Brisard and Dasquie claim to hold, the main subject of their discussion was oil. A Pakistani foreign minister was also present at the meeting, and witnessed the exchange.

How does this pipeline relate to September 11th? According to Brisard and Dasquie, the main obstacle to the completion of the pipeline was the fact that it had to pass through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The project would receive no international support unless the Afghan government somehow became legitimized. In bargaining for the pipeline, the Bush administration demanded that the Taliban reinstate deposed King Mohammad Zahir Shah as ruler of Afghanistan, and demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden for arrest. In return, the Taliban would reap untold billions in profit from the pipeline. According to Brisard and Dasquie, part of the Bush administration's bargaining tactics involved threats of war if these conditions for the legitimization of Afghanistan were not met.

The BBC of London reported on September 18th, 2001 of the existence of war plans on Bush's desk aimed at Afghanistan. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, stated that the war plans were slated for October of 2001. Conditions set by the Bush administration to avoid war involved the Taliban's handing over of bin Laden and the acceptance of King Zahir Shah. Naik went so far as to doubt that America would hold off on war even if these conditions were met.

The result, according to the French analysts, was total disaster. The Bush administration fundamentally misunderstood the Taliban regime - to bring back the King and hand bin Laden over to the West would have been tantamount to suicide for the Taliban. Instead of acquiescing to the hard-sell tactics of the Bush administration, the Taliban unleashed their pet attack dog, Osama, upon America. They were going to lose everything, and chose to attack first in the hope that all-out war would break out in Central Asia and rally other Muslim nations to their cause.

Motive suddenly becomes far more clear. The Bush administration very much wanted the Unocal pipeline to go through, and put intense pressure on the Taliban to see it happen. As this was happening, American intelligence services were flooded with warnings of an impending attack upon American targets by bin Laden and Al Qaida. The decision was made - let the attack come, and in the ensuing outrage American forces can carve out the guts of the Taliban government like a ripe gourd, replacing them with a 'legitimate' regime more receptive to the pipeline plan.

Did the Bush administration have an inkling of the massive death and destruction that would come on September 11th? Those who espouse the LIHOP Theory disagree on this point. Some believe that FEMAs presence at Ground Zero on the day before the attack, coupled with specific language within the international intelligence warnings pertaining to aircraft and high-profile targets, are prima facie evidence of specific prior knowledge. Others believe that the Bush administration only knew vaguely that an attack would come, but not where or when. They did not foresee the level of destruction, and were caught flat-footed when those planes appeared along the New York skyline.

In the end, LIHOP Theory can encompass either view. Whether they had specific knowledge beforehand, or merely decided to let some attack happen somewhere, the final results were the same. The Taliban were routed and replaced by an interim government headed by a man named Harmid Karzai. Karzai was recently elected President of Afghanistan in his own right, legitimizing the Afghanistan government. Soon after this, Karzai announced the impending construction of a pipeline that would exploit Turkmenistan's natural gas reserves He named Unocal as the lead company for the project. Before becoming President, Karzai was an advisor to Unocal.

For LIHOP Theorists, the evidence is clear. The Bush administration got the pipeline it wanted. Along the way, they used the horrors of 9/11 to place themselves above reproach. In the patriotic fervor that resulted from the attacks, both the press and the Democratic opposition were bracketed by the administration-espoused idea that any questions or criticism were tantamount to treason.

The passage of the PATRIOT Anti-Terror Act has given the US government sweeping abilities to snuff dissent by defining it as terrorism, thanks to the loosely-defined wording of the bill. Bush enjoyed stratospheric approval ratings that persist to this day, and American citizens were given new enemies to hate. The Defense Department, and the weapons contractors who cater to them, received billions from the federal budget to do with as they pleased in order to address the objects of that hate.

Even the most hardened political observer must admit the dismal truth - September 11th was the greatest thing ever to happen to the Bush administration. Attorney Stanley Hilton has brought LIHOP Theory into the federal court system with his class-action suit, and with the families of 9/11 victims he represents. It will be interesting to see what transpires when these two facts collide in an American courtroom. Given the current climate, it does not seem likely that much will come of it. After all, these conspiracy theorists are just a bunch of nuts.

Right?

The problem is not a left or right issue as much as it is a "mass media issue". Everyone tends to have their beliefs and the media both play off and feed these beliefs. One can go anywhere and find "collaborating" stories to support their views one way or the other. Therefore a media outlet will play to the already held notions of it's constituency. For instance, a blog, magazine, newstation etc that has a majority of antiwar customers will play to that base and visa versa. I mean really I do not think the death and destruction now that the war is over is not unlike anything we see in the US. I mean we have been a "Democracy" (save me democracy vs republic argument here) for 200 plus years. Have we eradicated murder, crime, bombings etc from our country so what makes us think we will eradicate it from another. Imagine if the only news and ideas you had about America came from the LA riots during the Rodney King trial what would you think. So when the media who is "antiwar" gets wind of any bad problems going down rest assured they will be there to film it never mind the school being built a block away.

On the other hand the right would have you believe the Iraqi's were a bunch of savage neanderthals before America came in and gave them a "glimse" of democracy.

Unfortunately the truth sets in the middle but when one does not subscribe to the others opinions, believes, etc they will be force fed the information "their" media wants em to have, never hearing the other side.

Hell 98% of the students at UW have never been outside our country little else Iraq, will NEVER be in our military so how do THEY profess to know the inner workings other than what they hear,usually by left leaning media and professors.

In short they go through life like robots (funny the same thing they accuse the military of) with the only "truth" they know coming off MTV, CNN, FOX etc.

SSG Ronald Pritchett
ronald.pritchett@verizon.net

Norm Mineta is a lifelong Democrat who spent time in a WWII internment camp for Japanese Americans.

He's the LAST person who'd be in on a plot by Republicans to use a surprise attack to gain anything.

Stock up on Reynolds Wrap, you're gonna need it.