Off Topic Messages

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:01 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Blue River wrote:
elvissessions wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:How is the U.S. changing?

Well, for example, the long-overdue broad-based acceptance of gay rights and all the good things that go along with them, including marriage equality ... and fuller participation in organizations such as the Boy Scouts and the military.

Yeah, what a change. :facep:
Obama is losing credibility... even with the liberals now.
>> http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/55077-c ... ng-nation/
>> http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/12298

God, you just never stop with the name-calling, do you?

Where's the name-calling?
Someone who lies is a liar. That's not name-calling. That's calling it like it is.

Glad to clear that up for you. :wink:


::rocks

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:50 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:Your posts are far too often negative, bitter, off-base and defensive.
Someone told me you're akin to a never-healing boil on this forum

I'm sure that you and your little buddies also consider the U.S. Constitution as a "negative, bitter, off-base, defensive, never-healing boil".

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:17 am

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I spent the day volunteering at my sons' closing ceremonies for their Little League teams.

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:I was not then and am not now a supporter of the NSA spy policy. I disagreed with the Bush administration then and disagree with the Obama administration now.


That's good to know! :D By the way, thank you for your (mostly) civil answers. It's obvious that we're miles apart politically but I appreciate the fact that you didn't resort to calling me names. (Strangely, I was called a "racist" by someone on this thread earlier. My grandparents on the white side of my family were racists. It would be kind of absurd for me to be a racist considering that my Arkansas-born grandfather referred to me as the "half-breed.")

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Obama is much more "left" than Bush or any of his democratic predecessors.


He's obviously to the left of Bush! But he's certainly not the "leftist liberal" that the hysterical right make him out to be. He's barely to the left of center.

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:You obviously don't listen to or watch any of the names you mention because if you did you would know that all of these WE'RE very critical of the Bush Administration on several issues.


You're right. I don't listen to them or watch watch them. But I would have heard about it if they had criticized the Bush administration. It was a HUGE deal when Rush Limbaugh made his comment in 2006 that he would no longer "have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried" after the Democrats took control of Congress. The one time Rush criticized the Republicans it was major news. If Hannity, O'Reilly or Beck said anything critical about the Bush administration, we would have heard about it. Similar to how we hear about it when Jon Stewart slams Obama.

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Joe Scarborough checked his conservatism at the MSNBC door when they hired him. He's NO conservative.


Are you being serious? Sorry, but Scarborough is a conservative. Just because he has a conscience doesn't mean you should take away his conservative credentials.

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
History may one day, long after the evildoers are deceased, prove beyond any doubt the culpability of the Bush Administration in the horrific events of that day.

Inherit The Wind wrote: I certainly hope so.


And now we have 3 with NO credibility.


I don't think that Bush personally blew up the building; that's an absurd notion. I do, however, believe that he and his administration let it happen. They had plenty of warning about Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and they did nothing to stop them. Let's not forget Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in the creation of the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) document “Rebuilding America's Defenses” during the year 2000 which suggested a need for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event— like a new Pearl Harbor.” What happened on 9/11 was exactly the "catalyzing" event Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were looking for. (I'm almost willing to believe that George Bush himself was a clueless bystander.)

Long before anti-terrorist activities became hip after 9/11, many Republicans called President Clinton's 1996 efforts to stop terrorism a "phony issue." Some Republicans had the nerve to to say that the anti-terrorist bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan 1998 were ordered to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. (There were many "Wag The Dog" references.) Before Bush took office he was warned repeatedly by the Clinton administration that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation. (President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, Richard A. Clarke, said that he was "very explicit" about his warnings to Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser.) After Bush took office there was an explicit warning that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda intended to strike the United States. (The famous daily brief that was given to President Bush was titled "Bin Ladin (sic) Determined To Strike in US." This was 36 days before the attack. What did they do? Nothing.

In an interview with Fox News in 2006 President Clinton said, "And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people."

You may say I lack credibility, but this is what I believe. I know nothing I've written will change your opinion but I am addressing the fact that you said I had "NO credibility." I think the evidence supports what I believe. And there's a lot of evidence out there.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:50 am

InheritTheWind wrote:I don't think that Bush personally blew up the building; that's an absurd notion. I do, however, believe that he and his administration let it happen ...


Oh, it's much, much more than that. Like I said, stay healthy, live long, and after all the scumbags are deceased, we might just be allowed to learn exactly what was done, how and why. Of course, by then, it won't matter. It's how they work. ;-)

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:20 am

:lol:
Last edited by Blue River on Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:21 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
InheritTheWind wrote:I don't think that Bush personally blew up the building; that's an absurd notion. I do, however, believe that he and his administration let it happen ...


Oh, it's much, much more than that. Like I said, stay healthy, live long, and after all the scumbags are deceased, we might just be allowed to learn exactly what was done, how and why. Of course, by then, it won't matter. It's how they work. ;-)


I absolutely agree that it's much more than that. I'm only giving my lowest possible assessment of what happened. I'm just stating the information that you can find on any common major news source. And I seriously hope you're right about the possibility of us learning "exactly what was done, how and why." We can only hope.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:26 am

InheritTheWind wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
InheritTheWind wrote:I don't think that Bush personally blew up the building; that's an absurd notion. I do, however, believe that he and his administration let it happen ...

Oh, it's much, much more than that. Like I said, stay healthy, live long, and after all the scumbags are deceased, we might just be allowed to learn exactly what was done, how and why. Of course, by then, it won't matter. It's how they work. ;-)

I absolutely agree that it's much more than that. I'm only giving my lowest possible assessment of what happened. I'm just stating the information that you can find on any common major news source. And I seriously hope you're right about the possibility of us learning "exactly what was done, how and why." We can only hope.

:lol: Keep dreaming.

drjohncarpenter wrote:... after all the scumbags are deceased...

You just never stop with the name-calling, do you?

Someone told me you're akin to the scumbags (Barry & Michelle) currently occupying the White House
and the other scumbag democrats elsewhere in Washington, D.C.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:42 am

Blue River wrote:
Someone told me you're akin to the scumbags (Barry & Michelle) currently occupying the White House
and the other scumbag democrats elsewhere in Washington, D.C.


You just never stop with the name-calling, do you?

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:20 am

How 'bout those St. Louis Cardinals!! :D

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:03 am

Blue River wrote:How 'bout those St. Louis Cardinals!! :D

They're Scumbags! :lol:

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:09 am

InheritTheWind wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
InheritTheWind wrote:I don't think that Bush personally blew up the building; that's an absurd notion. I do, however, believe that he and his administration let it happen ...


Oh, it's much, much more than that. Like I said, stay healthy, live long, and after all the scumbags are deceased, we might just be allowed to learn exactly what was done, how and why. Of course, by then, it won't matter. It's how they work. ;-)


I absolutely agree that it's much more than that. I'm only giving my lowest possible assessment of what happened. I'm just stating the information that you can find on any common major news source. And I seriously hope you're right about the possibility of us learning "exactly what was done, how and why." We can only hope.


How many years did it take before we learned that Pearl Harbor 12-07-1941 was not a "surprise" attack? One suspects the same amount of time will be necessary for the truth about 9-11-2001 to be common knowledge. And, as I said, nothing will happen -- all the evildoers will be long dead. It's sad.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:16 am

Well It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know a commercial 757 airliner cannot fit through a 16ft hole that was left in the side of the Pentagon, with 0% wreckage left over. But I'm sure George W. Bush could explain that easily.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:36 pm

promiseland wrote:Well It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know a commercial 757 airliner cannot fit through a 16ft hole that was left in the side of the Pentagon, with 0% wreckage left over. But I'm sure George W. Bush could explain that easily.


In this example, the U.S. government confiscated over 80 videos of the incident, from within the Pentagon and those made in the surrounding area, within hours of the "attack." To this day these tapes remain locked away, despite numerous requests to view them.

Why?

Answer that question and you move a step closer to understanding the events of 9-11-2001.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:06 pm

promiseland wrote:But I'm sure George W. Bush could explain that easily.


I'm still not convinced that George W. Bush had the intellectual capacities to be part of something so horribly diabolical. I truly believe that Dick Cheney was the evil behind the President. Cheney was one of the most vile figures in the history of politics.

Nowadays Bush is spending his time blissfully painting pictures of dogs, cats and his toes poking out of a bathtub.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:51 pm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/11/the-daily-shows-john-oliver-nsa-phone-tracking-just-the-tip-of-the-shtburg/

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:18 pm

intheghetto wrote:


Great clip of John Oliver, he looks like he's doing a great job filling in for Jon Stewart.

Now…this is what cracks me up about the sudden outrage over all the 'snooping'. Do people seriously think that this is some type of new activity? I think a pretty good educated guess would be that the NSA or whoever has been doing this type of thing since the internet hit the ground and was available for mainstream consumption almost 20 years ago. This is the down side of all the convenience people! You want to have all of this instant access and 'social networking'? Well guess what, this stuff is available to be monitored and apparently has been monitored, and I would guess that this isn't the first administration that has taken advantage of this aspect of the technology. If you think that the government has suddenly, last week decided to monitor your digital activity I suggest you get rid of your computer and cell phone, and buy yourself a nice old school analog telephone and call it a day. Somebody wants to get in touch with you…leave a message after the beep.


It does not crack me up but it is reality. Rumors were flying around for years, this is just the confirmation. I do like John's style, he does seem to do rather well.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:14 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:How many years did it take before we learned that Pearl Harbor 12-07-1941 was not a "surprise" attack?

One suspects the same amount of time will be necessary for the truth about the Benghazi cover-up and Internal Revenue Service cover-up to be common knowledge. Nothing will happen -- the current Democratic Party evildoers will be long dead.

Concerned, truth-seeking Americans will at least be grateful for that when the time comes.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:29 pm

Blue River wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:How many years did it take before we learned that Pearl Harbor 12-07-1941 was not a "surprise" attack?


One suspects the same amount of time will be necessary for the truth about the Benghazi cover-up and Internal Revenue Service cover-up to be common knowledge.


Very important and significant issues there.

Like a pimple on the pumpkin that is 9-11.

;-)

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:30 am

Who knows more about the Consensus Panel? It seems people are wondering.
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130516-909978.html

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:47 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
InheritTheWind wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
InheritTheWind wrote:I don't think that Bush personally blew up the building; that's an absurd notion. I do, however, believe that he and his administration let it happen ...


Oh, it's much, much more than that. Like I said, stay healthy, live long, and after all the scumbags are deceased, we might just be allowed to learn exactly what was done, how and why. Of course, by then, it won't matter. It's how they work. ;-)


I absolutely agree that it's much more than that. I'm only giving my lowest possible assessment of what happened. I'm just stating the information that you can find on any common major news source. And I seriously hope you're right about the possibility of us learning "exactly what was done, how and why." We can only hope.


How many years did it take before we learned that Pearl Harbor 12-07-1941 was not a "surprise" attack? One suspects the same amount of time will be necessary for the truth about 9-11-2001 to be common knowledge. And, as I said, nothing will happen -- all the evildoers will be long dead. It's sad.


Clinton caused 9-11-

http://www.acsa2000.net/clinton_caused_911.htm

I remember during Bill Clinton's time in office, listening to the news with my Dad (yes of course Rush was one of the shows and news sources!) and I was well aware of the terrorist movements, and their attack of the World Trade Center in which Clinton had all sorts of opportunities to to something about preventing future disasters and the FBI's involvement......http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtcbomb.html

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:42 am

Thank you for the spot-on article, ian !

http://www.acsa2000.net/clinton_caused_911.htm

Bill Clinton was an utter and total failure (as President of the U.S.) The statement refers to Clinton's unwillingness to remedy the problem of international terrorism. Much has been said and written about Clinton, but facts are facts, and the facts show that Clinton did not protect America from terrorism, in particular Usama bin Laden. Usama bin Laden heads the terrorist group Al Qaeda. Bin Laden explained the purpose of the group in an interview in May of 1997, he declared a jihad, a holy war, against the United States government because it is, according to him, unjust, criminal, and tyrannical.

Clinton was made painfully aware of the danger this group provided, but he did little to nothing to stifle its threats. Al Qaeda was busy during the Clinton Administration; the group took responsibility for the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on two U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of two U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the attacks on United States soldiers in Somalia. Throughout these attacks, Clinton did nothing to protect America or her citizens; in fact he sabotaged America's ability to protect herself. Clinton incapacitated America by weakening the counter-terror organizations, overusing diplomacy, and simply ignoring the problem of international terrorism.

Weakening the Counter-terror Organizations
Clinton disrupted the counter-terror organizations' ability to protect America on many different levels. It seems he kept a few words handy when dealing with armed forces, Central Intelligence Agency, and Federal Bureau of Investigation: under-funding, over-politicization, and compromise.

Clinton dangerously weakened the armed forces. He kept them under-funded and over-politicized at the same time as spreading them thinner than any president had ever done before. To keep his special interest constituents happy, Clinton made sure the armed forces, the Army in particular, was bogged down with political correctness. Clinton instituted a stress card system in boot camp. In this system, if a recruit was stressed he or she could flash a yellow card to the Drill Sergeant and would be exempt from the exercise. How will a soldier be able to stop terrorists if they can wimp through boot camp? President Clinton lowered the level of Special Forces training so that more women could join.

At the same time as weakening the Army, he spread it out all over the world. He used the Army in South America, the Near East, Africa, the Middle East, and Oceania. His use, or rather misuse, of the armed forces was both dangerous and ineffective.

The Central Intelligence Agency suffered greatly under Clinton. According to CIA agent Robert Baer, by the mid-1990s, the CIAÕs headquarters throughout the world lacked the officers to go after the rising epidemic of radical Islam. Clinton often ignored the CIAÕs advice, he considered them irrelevant. The CIA warned Clinton that without proper funding, it could not properly supply the White House with current, honest intelligence. Clinton responded by disregarding the CIAÕs request for more funding.

It was the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent John O'Neil that first connected Usama bin Laden to the rise in Islamic radicalism, specifically the terrorist actions of Muslims. O'Neil told officials in 1997,

When bin Laden, speaks we have to listen. They have the capability to strike American soil any time they choose.
Then on September 10, 2001, O'Neil said,

It's going to happen. And it looks like something big is brewing.

O’Neil made a career of tracking bin Laden and predicting his actions, he informed the White House that bin Laden is the center of activity and that he controls the actions of millions of followers. The White House, starting with President George H. W. Bush and peaking with President Clinton, neglected his warnings.

The one time President Clinton did use military might, it was hastily done. Clinton had ordered the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan to take attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. O'Neil, and a few others in a tight circle of national security insiders, knew Clinton was working with intelligence that was more than a year old. O'Neil felt that if Clinton was going to use the information, he should have used it when he got it, not when it was politically helpful. Clinton did not even notify the Director the FBI of the attacks. Clinton also didn't notify the FBI or CIA agents that were in those countries; they were essentially left in two heavily bin Laden sympathizing nations wearing FBI coats. A total of 75 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles were fired, Afghani terrorist camps and a Sudanese VX manufacturing plant were the targets. The VX plant turned out to be an aspirin plant, the only casualties were Sudanese civilians. And time proved Clinton wrong with his attacks in Afghanistan. All the terrorist training camps survived well enough to train Mohammed Atta, the suspected ring-leader of the high-jackers on September 11th.

The Over Use of Diplomacy
It was President Teddy Roosevelt that said, Walk soft but carry a big stick. Clinton never failed to walk softly, but his destruction of the armed forces weakened his big stick. Clinton was weary of using the full force of military might, this is shown by his complete inaction after each terrorist attack. This compounded with his ineffectiveness at diplomacy made him useless at protecting America.

After the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 Americans, the Saudi government arrested eleven suspects. Clinton tried to get the Saudi government to allow America to try the suspects. He failed. Agent OÕNeil contacted former President Bush, and together they were only able to witness an interview of the suspects.

To prove his complete lack of caring, Clinton froze all of bin Laden's assets. He did this as a last-ditch effort to prove he did something. Clinton notified Congress of his freezing of bin Laden's assets in August of 1998, three years later bin Laden was still capable of killing thousands of American citizens on American soil. Clinton failed to realize that bin Laden's power doesn't come from assets, it comes from rhetoric.

Dick Morris explains Clinton as having paralysis by analysis. According to him, Clinton sees everything as a complex problem, where others would simply see it as a problem that can be fixed with swift military action. Morris had this to say about Clinton:

Beyond Clinton's reluctance to engage the military, another factor was at play here: Bill Clinton was a one-thing-at-a-time president.
It was this indecision and inaction that caused the September 11th attacks. Clinton should have engaged the military with an all out assault on bin Laden, his terrorist camps, and all nations that harbored those camps.

Clinton Simply Ignored the Problem of International Terrorism
Bin Laden claimed responsibility for six terrorist attacks on Americans during Clinton's years as president; as Morris writes, All our terrorist problems were born during the Clinton years. After the six attacks, a total of 75 missiles were launched, no troops were deployed, and no extra covert agents were deployed.

In 1993, American soldiers were involved in what has become named the Black Hawk Down Incident. In a routine operation, U.S. soldiers were to detain key Somali figures. The soldiers came under heavy fire and were unable to adequately protect themselves because of a White House order to only use light weaponry. In that operation, 18 American soldiers were killed. Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks. President Clinton responded by showing his attitude toward terrorism, he gave in to bin Laden and removed all troops from Somalia.

After the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers, and the World Trade Center, Clinton did nothing of importance. Bin Laden was basically told that he could kill Americans with no repercussions. It was this message that Clinton showed that allowed bin Laden to orchestrate the attacks of September 11th. Also, when the Sudanese government got tired of protecting bin Laden, they offered to give him to Clinton, but Clinton refused. Rumor has it that this occurred two other times with the same result; however, this can not be proven because when people learn of devastating information about Clinton, they tend not to survive.

On February 26, 1993, America and Clinton Administration realized the full scope of bin Laden's abilities. On that morning, Ramzi Yousef and a few others parked an explosives-ridden van in the below-ground garage of the World Trade Center. When the bomb went off six Americans were killed and over one thousand were injured. This attack was the first of its kind seen on American soil, it should have awakened the Clinton Administration, but it didn't.

Conclusion
No man caused the attacks of September 11th more than bin Laden himself, but it was President Clinton that allowed those attacks to happen. Bill Clinton systematically turned the counter-terror organizations to a politically correct automaton of his pacifistic, anti-military beliefs. It is this attitude of his that allowed bin Laden to kill almost 3,000 Americans in one day. Clinton also relied too heavily on diplomacy when military intervention would have been safer, more methodical, and more complete. Finally, Clinton disregarded the warnings of the CIA and the FBI. He continued his pattern of ignoring America's best interest by refusing to imprison bin Laden. It was Clinton that allowed the tragedy to happen, and now he has the death of 3,000 Americans on his conscience.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:01 am

intheghetto wrote:Copy/paste strikes again! Nice work!

If you haven't heard Osama Bin Laden was killed under the direction of our current president Barack Obama, so you can stop crying about Bill Clinton who by the way attempted and failed at getting Bin Laden long before September 11, 2001. He not only failed but he was man enough to openly admit it on national television. Where? On Fox News in a conversation with Chris Wallace. At least he tried which is alot more than the president from the following administration who stated in a tossed salad of talking points, just 6 months after 9/11 that he didn't think too much about Bin Laden…

phpBB [video]



Yes, Blue River liked Ian's little story so much that he decided to post it again! It's so cute how those two stick together. Unfortunately, it was a poorly written piece of junk from a sketchy web site. Oh well! Better luck next time, boys!

Sadly, Republicans weren't very interested in terrorism in 1998 and 1999; they were more interested in spending $40 million in taxpayer money to discover a BJ! (So what if the rest of the world laughed at us?)

When the original Whitewater investigator Robert B. Fiske (A Republican!) found absolutely NO WRONGDOING on Clinton's part it wasn't good enough for them; they decided to get a known Clinton-hater by the name of Kenneth Starr to investigate the "scandal." 40 million taxpayer dollars later he also found absolutely NO WRONGDOING on Clinton's part in the Whitewater "scandal." But he found a BJ! A $40 million BJ! He completely stopped investigating Whitewater because there was nothing there; instead he spent the money prying into the President's private life.

The most interesting thing about the whole Republican witch hunt is that Americans rallied around President Clinton. He became more popular because of the perversions of Kenneth Starr and the Republican Party. ("Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.")

If only the Republicans had their priorities straight there might not have been a tragedy on 9/11.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:15 am

intheghetto wrote:If you haven't heard Osama Bin Laden was killed under the direction of our current president Barack Obama...

:lol: "under the direction of our current president Barack Obama" ?! :lol:

Barack Obama didn't directly have anything to do with the military finding and killing Bin Laden.

Please snap out of your fantasy world.

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:06 am

PRESS RELEASE
May 16, 2013, 10:00 a.m. ET

The 9/11 Phone Calls: Disturbing Irregularities Uncovered in the Calls that Flashed around the World

NEW YORK, May 16, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- America first learned of the 9/11 hijackings from Solicitor-General Ted Olson, who reported two calls from his wife, well-known CNN commentator Barbara Olson.

From American Airlines Flight 77, Barbara Olson fleshed out the drama of diminutive Muslim hijackers using knives and box-cutters to herd dozens of passengers to the rear of the plane.

These and other reported calls have now been examined by the 9/11 Consensus Panel of scientists, pilots, professors, attorneys, and journalists.

The Panel began its research in 2011 with the Twin Towers and the sudden, stunning collapse of adjacent Building WTC7, a massive 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper.

The official conclusion that all 82 support columns failed simultaneously from fire alone has for years raised serious questions about the official account.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel now offers four evidence-based Points about the alleged phone calls from the 9/11 flights.

The famous "let's roll" drama of the passenger revolt on UA 93 was relayed by passenger Todd Beamer's 13-minute unrecorded seat-back call to GTE telephone supervisor Lisa Jefferson, who reported Beamer as strangely tranquil, declining to speak to his wife. Eerily, Beamer's line remained open for 15 minutes after the crash.

Oddly, the Verizon wireless record shows that 19 calls were made from Beamer's cell phone long after the crash of UA 93.

Initial media reports and FBI interviews detailed more than a dozen cell phone calls from the planes at high elevation.

Yet in 2001, a telephone spokesperson stated that sustained mobile calls were not possible above 10,000 feet.

During the 2006 Moussaoui Trial, the FBI (under oath) reduced the number of cell phone calls to two calls made from 5,000 feet, and presented evidence of only one (not two) "unconnected" call from Barbara Olson, lasting "0 seconds."

In another twist, two other women reported that Caller-ID showed their husband's cell numbers on their answering machines, which while lasting several minutes, had been made from elevations of 25,000 and 35,000 feet.

Finally, although the FBI conducted a massive investigation into the calls, none of the telephone billing, nor any of the cell phone location data stored in standard phone company records has been publicly released.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel has developed 32 Points of evidence.

SOURCE The 9/11 Consensus Panel

/Web site: http://www.consensus911.org

Re: Obama's Brick House!

Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:17 pm

One of many, many unanswered questions from this awful day.

Again, live long, stay healthy, and after the evildoers are deceased, we'll get the truth. Sadly, too little, too late.


epf wrote:PRESS RELEASE
May 16, 2013, 10:00 a.m. ET

The 9/11 Phone Calls: Disturbing Irregularities Uncovered in the Calls that Flashed around the World

NEW YORK, May 16, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- America first learned of the 9/11 hijackings from Solicitor-General Ted Olson, who reported two calls from his wife, well-known CNN commentator Barbara Olson.

From American Airlines Flight 77, Barbara Olson fleshed out the drama of diminutive Muslim hijackers using knives and box-cutters to herd dozens of passengers to the rear of the plane.

These and other reported calls have now been examined by the 9/11 Consensus Panel of scientists, pilots, professors, attorneys, and journalists.

The Panel began its research in 2011 with the Twin Towers and the sudden, stunning collapse of adjacent Building WTC7, a massive 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper.

The official conclusion that all 82 support columns failed simultaneously from fire alone has for years raised serious questions about the official account.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel now offers four evidence-based Points about the alleged phone calls from the 9/11 flights.

The famous "let's roll" drama of the passenger revolt on UA 93 was relayed by passenger Todd Beamer's 13-minute unrecorded seat-back call to GTE telephone supervisor Lisa Jefferson, who reported Beamer as strangely tranquil, declining to speak to his wife. Eerily, Beamer's line remained open for 15 minutes after the crash.

Oddly, the Verizon wireless record shows that 19 calls were made from Beamer's cell phone long after the crash of UA 93.

Initial media reports and FBI interviews detailed more than a dozen cell phone calls from the planes at high elevation.

Yet in 2001, a telephone spokesperson stated that sustained mobile calls were not possible above 10,000 feet.

During the 2006 Moussaoui Trial, the FBI (under oath) reduced the number of cell phone calls to two calls made from 5,000 feet, and presented evidence of only one (not two) "unconnected" call from Barbara Olson, lasting "0 seconds."

In another twist, two other women reported that Caller-ID showed their husband's cell numbers on their answering machines, which while lasting several minutes, had been made from elevations of 25,000 and 35,000 feet.

Finally, although the FBI conducted a massive investigation into the calls, none of the telephone billing, nor any of the cell phone location data stored in standard phone company records has been publicly released.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel has developed 32 Points of evidence.

SOURCE The 9/11 Consensus Panel

/Web site: http://www.consensus911.org