Psychic Christine Holohan on TV Fri29Sep

The PNAC Plan:

Also as a result of the end of the Cold War the Pentagon's funding was being cut because they no longer had an enemy to justify their massive budget. In response Dick Cheney's conservative think tank "The Project for a New American Century," (PNAC) submitted their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This report suggests that although "the United States faces no global rival," (p.i) the U.S. military should prepare "to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars,"(mission outlines) and set up "an enduring American military presence" (p.74) in the Persian Gulf, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Chapter 5 admits this would take a long time,"absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

3. First Actions as Vice President:

Dick Cheney then selects himself to run as George W. Bush's Vice President in a campaign largely funded by Enron. Shortly after the Supreme Court's intervention made Cheney the VP, he reopened the pipeline negotiations with the Taliban but the original financial offer was now accompanied by threats of military action if the pipeline was not allowed. The Taliban was told, "You either accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs!"

According to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, in their very first National Security Council meeting Bush and Cheney began brainstorming ideas for how to start a war in Iraq, and Judicial Watch has exposed secret maps drawn up by Cheney's Energy Task Force in March of 2001 detailing Iraq's oil industries size and estimated value.

4. Ignored Warnings:

The Bush Administration received dozens of detailed warnings of an impending al-Qaida attack, which included method, likely targets, and names of people involved, from many international and domestic intelligence agencies. Yet all of these warnings were systematically blocked, suppressed, or ignored by the Bush Administration.

5. Obstructed Investigations:

Instead of investigating these warnings President Bush signed presidential directive W199I protecting members of the Bin Laden family and telling FBI Agents and defense intelligence officers to back off from al-Qaida related investigations. Although debunkers will argue the validity of the W199I directive, the testimonies of FBI counterterror chief John O'Neill, field officer Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit of the Minnesota FBI, translator Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer of Able Danger, and prosecutor David Shippers indicate a concerted high level effort to protect domestic terrorists.

6. Wargame Drills Scheduled for 9/11:

In May, 2001 President Bush put Dick Cheney in charge of the "Office of National Preparedness" charged with protecting America from domestic attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, and managing training exercises throughout all military agencies in preparation for such an attack. It was later revealed that multiple military exercises, remarkably similar to the 9/11 attack, were scheduled for the morning of September 11, 2001. Although military officials refuse to confirm who managed to schedule these drills during the very time of the real attack, these drills would clearly fall under Cheney's jurisdiction.

7. Changes in Military Procedures:

There were already Standard Operating Procedures set in place well before 9/11 concerning how to respond to the hijacking of commercial flights. As soon as any flight goes off course or looses contact with the controllers, the FAA immediately contacts NORAD who scrambles fighters to intercept. This happens on a regular basis. From September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched.Yet in June of 2001 these procedures are altered to require approval from Secretary of Defense before NORAD could respond with "potentially lethal support", ( launching combat aircraft ), to an emergency call.

8. Afghan Invasion Plans Finalized:

Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October despite having no Congressional approval for any military action. September 9, two days before the attack, the final plans to go to war against the Taliban to begin in October were ready for President Bush to sign in to action. It is critical to point out that without the 9/11 attack the Bush administration would not have had justification to use this plan, yet they continue to claim they had no advance warning about 9/11.

9. Connection to 9/11 Sponsor:

According to the FBI the chief of ISI -Pakistani Intelligence, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, approved over $100,000 in wire transfers to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta as payment for the attacks. During the week of the attack Gen. Ahmed is visiting Washington where he had meetings with Colin Powell, Richard Armatige, CIA Director George Tennant, Porter Goss and other Bush administration officials. The media and the 9/11 Commission both refuse to acknowledge this man who funded the attack or investigate his meetings with Bush officials.

10. Day of the Attack:

While the 9/11 Commission fails to mention the military wargame drills in progress during the attack or the changes in NORAD's hijack interception procedures, they also ignore or distort the many other anomalies concerning the day of the attack including the absence of top officials from their posts, the contradicting stories from NORAD and the FAA, the arrival time of Dick Cheney to the PEOC bunker, and the time that shoot down authorization is announced.

11. Afghanistan Invasion:

The September 11 attack gave Bush and Cheney the very pretext they needed to use the awaiting war plans under the pretext of getting Osama Bin Laden for the attack. Although the Taliban agreed to apprehend Bin Laden on the condition the U.S. would provide evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11, the Bush Administration ignores this request and the invasion starts right on schedule in October.

According to the FBI, to this day the Bush administration has yet to present any hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attack. This means that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified and violates international law.

Despite the claim that the invasion of Afghanistan was to apprehend Bin Laden, the U.S. military allows Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan while many al-Qaida soldiers are allowed to escape capture by a Pakistan airlift.

The Taliban was quickly overthrown and the Bush Administration picks Afghanistan's new president, Harmid Karzai, who was a consultant for Unocal. Less than a year later the 3.2 billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan began construction.

12. Obstructed Investigations:

For 14 months the Bush administration was able to hinder and obstruct any public investigation of the attack. According to Senator Tom Daschle, both the President and the Vice President lobby him for no 9/11 investigation. Dick Cheney even threatens Congressional Democrats with "interfering with the war on terror" if they press for a 9/11 investigation.

When the 9/11 Commission was finally formed, it was rife with conflicts of interest and severely underfunded. Bush and Cheney refuse to testify unless they are questioned by the commission together, behind closed doors, without being taped, without taking an oath, and with no records kept. The final report is filled with dozens of factual omissions and distortions.

13. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has used 9/11 to justify it's policy of military aggression along with an unprecedented level of power and secrecy. They then used false evidence to expand the war into Iraq.

All of this information taken together builds a compelling case that members of the Bush administration, namely Dick Cheney, at the very least knew the 9/11 attack was coming and took steps to insure it's success for personal and political benefit. Dick Cheney had a clear motive for the attack, was in a position to facilitate the attack, and is implicated by evidence and witness testimony of involvement. One must only ask why this information is not public knowledge and why formal charges have yet be made against him.

KING MOB :

Very compelling stuff, and shockingly only a portion of the non-scientific evidence publicly available. We also have the issues of insider trading, FAA tapes and CIA interrogation tapes being destroyed on purpose, dubious evidence relating to the hijackers, the fact that Hani Hanjour, who is said to have flown flight 77 into the Pentagon, and pulled off the most complex maneuvers of the day, was a terrible pilot, the un-Islamic behavior of the hijackers, reports of the airplane black boxes being found at ground zero, which contradicts the official story which says they were not found, reports that the father of alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta spoke to him on September 12th, 9/11 family member Patty Casazza stating that whistleblowers told her the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets, it is just staggering. And I could go on for a bit with more points still.

King Mob wrote: »

And so we have the perfect example of how conspiracy theorists debate.
They bring up long debunked "facts" then ignore any criticisms of those facts and throw out even more "facts", out of context quotes and complete non sequiters.

You've refused to answer any of my questions and instead opted for the usual style of the crank.
you've inadvertently answer one however.

It's clear that no amount of evidence or reasoning will change your mind, therefore you are not a skeptic.

I tell you what though, if you're interested in an actual debate instead of shouting dubious facts at me, how about this.
You offer one singular point of information you believe is irrefutable and definite proof of a conspiracy and we will both focus on that one point?

The rejection of Ted Olsens story (where he recieved a phone call from his wife from the hijacked plane) by American Airlines, the Pentagon and especially the FBI.

robindch wrote: »

As a matter of forum policy, there's a fine line between, on the one hand, encouraging Skeptical debate concerning matters of public interest and, on the other hand, allowing people to post pages of unsupported, unscientific views gleaned from crank websites and other staples of the paranoid conspiracy literature. The first is what this forum is for, the latter is best left in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

So far, you've provided little more than huge chunks of cut'n'pasted quotes that are as free of context as they are of any hint of skepticism. And neither have you replied with anything of any substance to King Mob's questions.

This isn't a conversation, it's a sermon and does not suggest to me that you have any interest in skepticism. So could I please suggest that you spend some time reading up on on what [url=scientific skepticism is, and then come back to us if you feel it's appropriate.

It was not gleaned from paranoid conspiracy literature - another popular ad hominen attack made against people who dare question 911.I have as I said earlier done my own independent research and read many books and critically acclaimed I might add on the subject. Ans with all respect for fear of being banned - was this not a debate between myself and King Mob? who Is allowed to post links from so called debunking websites.

They(media) were told the building was going to collapse. Not true and CNN reported its collapse close to an hour beforehand, the BBC about 20 minutes. The fact that no steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire and the fact that their were other buildings with far worse damage and fire infernoes raging in them - how come the media or anyone else for that matter kno that this particular building was going to collapse. The bankers trust building which was up right next to the south tower recieved far more substantial damage from falling debris and had raging infernoes in a dozen floors yet did not collapse.

Sceptic - sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity
adj
(Philosophy) of or relating to sceptics; sceptical
[from Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon, from skeptesthai to consider]
scepticism archaic and US, skepticism n

I question and doubt the official 911 theory , that certainly makes me more of a skeptic than you.