What about the third building that fell? and why most of employees not working that day?

Posted by: K L Davis at February 18, 2006 2:33 PM

Mr. Rumsfeld provided an interview to Parade Magazine. Apparently he made a slip, and additonally, the transcriptionist made a slip.

quoting:
"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

(end quote)

Mr. Rumsfeld tells of the missile that hit the building. The transcriptionist inadvertantly types about the plane filed with the citizens, not filled with citizens.

Have a good day.

Posted by: Private Citizen at February 21, 2006 8:24 PM

Its just nice to see that the truth movement is getting the attention it deserves. If you really start to read the FACTS regarding 9/11, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe the government's version of 9/11.

It also seems to be taboo in the USA to talk about Israel's role in 9/11. Since we live in a country, through its freedoms routinely allows criticism our own government, surely we are free to criticize the government or actions of a foregin entity.

If you get a chance please take a look at this article of the Israeli messaging company that was warned of the 9/11 attacks 2 hours before they happened. Thanks.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has\

Posted by: Harry at February 22, 2006 2:20 PM

Don't be fooled, theres a lot of misinformation out there.

K.L. Davis makes a bold claim, but wheres the link backing up this evidece, we can't check to see if it's true.

Some lie in the 9/11 truth movement, so make sure that your information is correct and investigate it for yourself.

Posted by: Deniz Yeter at February 22, 2006 9:47 PM

These articles in some respects are a cautionary tale for those of us who believe in an alternative 9/11 conspiracy. Particularly good points are the ones dealing with uncynical faith in government law enforcement and security agencies and the unwillingness to listen to information debunking what we believe is true or plausible counter explanations. That being said it is in the end irrelevant that people find comfort in conspiracy theories or how many people shot JFK. What matters is the evidence or lack of to support the official or alternative 9/11 theories. The other point is that how can you have a conspiracy 101 article and not mention the Bush /Bin Ladin family connection the subject of one very popular movie in 2004?

Posted by: Edward Kollin at February 23, 2006 2:46 PM

Too bad Bin Laden didn't take down the village trash. Of course it would be hard to hit the village voice since it lives in the gutter.

Posted by: David L. Creed at February 24, 2006 6:45 PM

1) Larry Silverstein admitted that WTC7 was ‘pulled’

2) Molten iron in basement levels 6 and 7—heat levels of 1500 degrees five and six weeks into cleanup in those levels

3) Squibs visible in many of the videos and characteristics of pyrotechnic clouds pulverizing concrete to micron sized particles

4) Total collapse of the core structural beams—while sections of exterior skeleton remained standing

5) Symmetrical collapse into the foundations at a rate of freefall

6) Eutectic change in the sample examined indicating likely thermite use

7) Seismic readings indicating huge pulse of energy in a ground-coupled explosion

8) Stock put options on UAL and AA placed by a CIA-connected brokerage

9) Cancellation of flights by high level government officials

10) Condoleeza Rice calling San Fran mayor to warn against flying on 911

11) Slips of Rumsfeld’s tongue—“Pentagon hit by missle” and “plane shot down over Pennsylvania”

The most credible, peer reviewed compilation of evidence I've seen that debunks the Kean Commission account and supports the hypothesis that all three buildings were rigged for demolition before the planes hit is www.st911.org--a site supposedly set up by physics experts at Brigham Young University.

At the minimum, several of the listed points above should make it imperative that the investigation be reopened--this time with independent experts--not hand-picked Bushevics.

Posted by: Dr. Ed Kendrick at February 27, 2006 12:24 PM

"Condolezza Rice calling San Fran Mayor to warn against flying on 9/11".
:This is the third version of this incident I have read in two weeks. Jarrett Murphy of the Voice reported it was a public State Department memo and Wikipedia reports this [According to the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco mayor Willie Brown recieved a warning "advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel." The mayor stated that the advisory came from "security people at the airport." The article went on to note, "Mike McCarron, assistant deputy director at SFO, said the Federal Aviation Administration 'routinely' issues security notices about possible threats. He said two or three such notices have been received in the past couple of months." ].
I want to ask Mr. Murphy and Dr. Kendrick what are your sources for your versions?

What Mr. Silverstein meant by "pulled" is the subject of much debate. Wikipedia goes into great detail on this issue. My opinion based on the whole statement is that he meant pull firemen but the fact he sent a spokesmen out three years after the fact raises red flags.

Dispite the above I agree with the docter 100% about reopening the investigation so here is number 12 again from wikipedia [Between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush, President Bush's brother was a principal in a company that provided security for both The World Trade Center and United Airlines. According to its president CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down". This last statement has been used by some conspiracy theorists to say that the contract "expired" on Sepember 11 2001]

Posted by: Edward Kollin at March 2, 2006 4:06 AM