September 11th 2001.

[akaWiintermoon]

Taken (From amongst many other similar snipets.) from 'Global News,' in Nexus Magazine ( http://www.nexusmagazine.com )

DID US AGENT WARN CANADA OF SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS?

The admission that the death of a Canadian diplomat in Moscow was murder may lend credence to the fantastic story arising from an extradition case in Toronto, in which a man claiming to be a US Naval Intelligence officer says he warned the RCMP and CSIS of the September 11 attacks, months in advance.

Delmart Edward Vreeland claimes he travelled to Moscow in Fall 2000 to obtain military documents regarding Russian countermeasures to US antimissile defence. His purpose was to see that they got into the hands of CSIS and to fool Ottawa into believing it was a Canadian discovery, so Canada and other allies might be inclined to drop their objections to "Star Wars."

His contact was a "systems analyst", Marc Bastien, said to be a CSIS agent working out of the embassy. Vreeland says he sensed something fishy with a Russian go-between and handed over a dummy bag before travelling to Toronto, where he was arrested on December 6 on an immigration warrant.

Only days after Vreelands arrest by Torontos police, Bastien was found dead in Moscow. Though he was only 35, the death was attributed to "Natural Causes." The body was returned to Canada for autopsy. Sources with the Mounties have since confirmed thatBastien indeed was murdered.

Among the Russian documents Vreeland says he retrieved was one describing impending terrorist attacks in the Untited states, naming Osama Bin Laden as an agent and the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as likely targets. Vreeland, with his Lawyer Paul Slansky, took the information to both CSIS and the RCMP last summer, but he was blown off as a crank.

The US Navy claims that Vreeland was discharged in the mid-1980s, having failed bootcamp, but there is evidence to suggest the military is altering his service record. For example, in a 'phone conversation recorded from jail in August 2001--before, Vreeland contends, his entire record could be wiped from the system--he is clearly told by a petty officer at a US Naval base that computer files confirm his rank as Lieutenant--an impossibility if he'd dropped out of boot camp.

(Source: Frank Magazine, Canada, October 16, 2001, http://www.frankmag.net; for updates on Vreeland's case, visit Mike Ruppert's website, http://www.copvcia.com.)

 

[akaWiintermoon]

US DISINFORMATION UNIT COMPROMISED BY TRUTH.

From the 'Global News' section of Nexus magazine.

The Us is closing down an information unit of the Department of Defense which was set up to project a favourable view of US military activity abroad and influence public opinion.

The move follows reports in the media that the controversial Office of Strategic Influence might start planting false stories among foreign journalists and spreading disinformation.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said such criticisms were "Of the mark," but they were so damaging that the unit's ability to function effectively had been irreparably compromised. The Office was created following the September 11 attacks on America, as part of efforts to combat international terrorism.

Meantime, President Bush has pledged that his administration would tell the American people the truth about it's foreign policy. Maybe the unit is still at work?

(Sources: AFP, February 21, 2002; BBC News, Feb 26, 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk)

 

[akaWiintermoon]

US SHADOW GOVERNMENT BUNKERS DOWN IN SECRET

(From the same source as above!)

A shadow government has been in place and living underground since September 11, 2001, in case Washington is wiped out by a nuclear attack by terrorists, the White House confirmed on March 1 st.

About 100 senior civil servants were dispatched to two secret locations in the eastern United States after September 11 to ensure continuity of government in the event that Washington was attacked. Teams have remained there on a rotational basis ever since.

The publicy disclosed element was that Vice-President Dick Cheney was reputidly in a "secure undisclosed location", meeting President George Bush only rarely.

It turns out that the Cheney plan was only part of a "Continuity of Operations Plan" to keep the country running in any conceivable contingency. The plan was drawn up nearly half a century ago, during the Eisenhower administration, when the United States was guarding against the posibility of a nuclear strike from the Soviet Union. It was never activated until President George W. Bush ordered it to be put into operation, hours after the attacks on New York, Washington and over Pennsylvania.

The existance of the shadow government was reported by the Washington Post yesterday after the paper did a deal with the administration that it would not disclose the location of the sites.

(Source: The Guardian, March 2, 2002.)

 

[akaWiintermoon]

Have a few more articals I wish to type but due to late hour and sholder ache (!) I shall do at a later date, probibly tomorrow.

Disclaimer:
I wish to make it clear that I am not anti-American, or am making any anti-American statements. I mearly read these articals and found the information within them interesting and thought provoking and thought I'd share them with others for that reason and to encourage debate.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi wintermoon keep doing what you are doing They can knock off JFK and they can knock off a lot of people, but the more of us who speak out for truth, well, think Bob Marley, they can't stop the time and they will be defeated. The people united will never be defeated. To everyone, get off the couch and face the truth. think martin luther king think ghandi think for yourselves and for democracy. just say no to right wing scum

 

[Anonymous]

There's already been a discussion of Vreeland's claims in another Conspiracy thread: http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2694
The concensus at the time was that his story didn't amount to much.

 

[Anonymous]

The amount of views and replies to this thread suggests that people are getting bored with September 11th.

Certainly, when I was in Boston last week I didn't hear or see one mention of it. Strange how something that apparantly "shook the world" doesn't even seem to register in people's minds now.

 

[Anonymous]

Not exactly - life has to go on and people who weren't directly affected aren't likely to be obssessing over it 6 months on. What I'm getting bored with is more and more outlandish conspiracy theories, few of which intersect with each other at any point.

 

[Anonymous]

...few of which intersect with each other at any point.

You don't expect them all to be true, do you? Thats like debunking all the religions by saying that they don't make sense together.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

Not sure if debunking is the word but taking all religions together
seems a pretty effective way to put them in their place.

Same with conspiracy theories. There was a time when it seemed
important to test how much was still sayable after September
11th. The unanswered questions remain unanswered but our own
civil liberties were not curtailed. The repercussions for others in
Afghanistan and the Middle East have been far more drastic but
no pedestrian Suicide Bombers can hope to match the theatrical
horror of the WTC atrocity.

The anxieties of its immediate aftermath have been displaced to
distant arenas where conflict appears to be the norm. Whether
anywhere is "safely" distant these days remains to be seen.

 

[ogopogo3]

Such is the problem with publications like Nexus: Any valid point being made in a single article is drowned out by the cacophony of junk science and completely unbelievable conspiracy stories in the remaining articles.

Take a look at what Nexus will have us believe in the current issue:

Dairy products weaken bones.

The MJ-12 documents are genuine.

The alien autopsy film is genuine.

Cancer and AIDS are being cured, but hushed up by the medical status quo.

Psychic healing is genuine.

Urine therapy is a remarkable cure-all.

You know, they don't call them fringe publications for nothing. I've often wondered how long it will take for them to figure out that they are their own worst enemies.

 

[Anonymous]

You can call me a conspiracy nut if you want but the official version of September 11th seems such bollocks to me.


* Why was the US military preparing war plans against Afghanistan months before the Sept. 11 attacks? Were they just looking for some event to propel the normally disinterested American public into a war as in the past?

* How could paper documents incriminating bin Laden be found intact at the WTC but the plane's black recording boxes designed to withstand crashes were damaged beyond use?

* Even days and weeks after the WTC attack, why were news cameramen prevented from photographing the ruins from certain angles, as complained about by CBS Correspondent Lou Young, who asked, "What are they afraid we're going to see?"

* Why has the NYPD liaison to the FBI been sent packing as a "security risk" as reported in the Oct. 16 New York Times? Whose security is at risk? The FBI? What is it that the bureau does not want NYPD to know?

* How could an obviously sophisticated terrorist plan involving perhaps as many as 100 persons and in the works for five years escape the notice of our intelligence services, especially the FBI and CIA? And why, instead of cashiering those responsible for this intelligence failure and totally restructuring these agencies, are we doubling their budgets? Will we now get twice as much failure as before?

* Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?

* Why did many witnesses claim to hear further explosions within the buildings? And why did the destruction of the WTC towers appear more like a controlled implosion than a tragic accident?

* Why did FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledge that the list of named hijackers might not contain their real names? Doesn't everyone have to show a photo ID to claim a boarding pass? Where was the normal security?

* Why was there a discrepancy of 35 names between the published passenger lists and the official death toll on all four of the ill-fated flights? Internet Columnist Gary North reported, "the published names in no instance match the total listed for the number of people on board." Why the discrepancy?

* As none of these listed passengers had an Arabic-sounding names, how did the government know which were the hijackers?

* Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers given by a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic control not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claimed were responsible?

* Since Saudi Arabia's foreign minister claimed five of the proclaimed hijackers were not aboard the death planes and in fact are still alive and a sixth man on that list was reported to be alive and well in Tunisia, why are these names still on the FBI list?

* Why were none of the named hijacker's names on any of the passenger list? If they all used aliases, how did the FBI identify them so quickly?

* Why did one of the named hijackers take luggage on a suicide flight, then leave it along with an incriminating note in his car at the airport?

* As for the overall investigation into the September attacks, by late October U.S. authorities conceded that most of their promising leads for finding accomplices and some of their long-held suspicions about several suspects have unraveled, according to The New York Times. Since more than 800 people have been arrested and more than 365,000 tips have been received from the public, why has nothing substantial has been forthcoming in the largest U.S. criminal investigation in history?

* Why are none of the nearly 100 people still being sought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation seen as a major suspect?

* Why are we bombing Afghanistan when apparently none of the listed hijackers were Afghans, but instead Arabs from various Middle Eastern nations? Since Iraq was implicated in the 1993 WTC attack, why are we not bombing that "rogue" nation?

* Why does the heavy drinking and searching for hookers by some of the hijackers in Boston, as reported by Reuters New Service, sound more like mercenaries carousing before a mission than pious religious fundamentalists about to meet their maker?

* How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals, the excuse for hustling President Bush all across the country on Sept. 11? Was this evidence of an inside job or was it, as reported by Fox News, evidence that former FBI employee and double agent Robert Hanssen delivered an updated version of the purloined computer software Promis to his Russian handlers who passed it along to bin Laden? Does this software, which was stolen from a US company during the Reagan Administration by Justice Department officials under Attorney General Ed Meese, allow outsiders carte blanch entrée to our top security computers? (Hanssen's last job before being arrested as a spy was to upgrade the FBI's intelligence computer systems.)

* If United Flight 93 crashed as the result of a struggle between heroic passengers and the hijackers, why did witnesses tell of a second plane which followed it down, falling burning debris, no deep crater and crash wreckage spread over a six-mile area indicative of an aerial explosion?

* Why did news outlets describe the throat-cutting and mutilation of passengers on Flight 93 with box cutters when Time magazine on Sept. 24 reported that one of the passengers called home on a cell phone to report, "We have been hijacked. They are being kind."?

 

[_schnor]

* Why was the US military preparing war plans against Afghanistan months before the Sept. 11 attacks? Were they just looking for some event to propel the normally disinterested American public into a war as in the past?

They were planning to destroy Al Qaeda training camps well before Sep. 11th.

* How could paper documents incriminating bin Laden be found intact at the WTC but the plane's black recording boxes designed to withstand crashes were damaged beyond use?

The 1 passport found unburnt is easily explained; at the initial moment of impact, such material would have been blown away, not everything burnt.

* Even days and weeks after the WTC attack, why were news cameramen prevented from photographing the ruins from certain angles, as complained about by CBS Correspondent Lou Young, who asked, "What are they afraid we're going to see?"

To stop the public from seeing the stockpiles of gold and thus preventing looting.

* Why has the NYPD liaison to the FBI been sent packing as a "security risk" as reported in the Oct. 16 New York Times? Whose security is at risk? The FBI? What is it that the bureau does not want NYPD to know?

He was most likely fired after a disagreement, and they didn't want to make it appear as if there were wars of words.

* How could an obviously sophisticated terrorist plan involving perhaps as many as 100 persons and in the works for five years escape the notice of our intelligence services, especially the FBI and CIA? And why, instead of cashiering those responsible for this intelligence failure and totally restructuring these agencies, are we doubling their budgets? Will we now get twice as much failure as before?

QED

* Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?

Quite simply not true

* Why did many witnesses claim to hear further explosions within the buildings? And why did the destruction of the WTC towers appear more like a controlled implosion than a tragic accident?

There were NO controlled explosions; air conditioning units are the most likely cause of further, minor explosions

* Why did FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledge that the list of named hijackers might not contain their real names? Doesn't everyone have to show a photo ID to claim a boarding pass? Where was the normal security?

Ask in any dodgy pub for a fake passport, and you'll get one within a few weeks.

* Why was there a discrepancy of 35 names between the published passenger lists and the official death toll on all four of the ill-fated flights? Internet Columnist Gary North reported, "the published names in no instance match the total listed for the number of people on board." Why the discrepancy?

Ever had a paperwork fubar?

* As none of these listed passengers had an Arabic-sounding names, how did the government know which were the hijackers?

Good detective work, that's how.

* Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers given by a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic control not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claimed were responsible?

Unsure of those facts, so I can't comment.

* Since Saudi Arabia's foreign minister claimed five of the proclaimed hijackers were not aboard the death planes and in fact are still alive and a sixth man on that list was reported to be alive and well in Tunisia, why are these names still on the FBI list?

The FBI want to cover themselves just incase.

* Why were none of the named hijacker's names on any of the passenger list? If they all used aliases, how did the FBI identify them so quickly?

Again, good detective work.

* Why did one of the named hijackers take luggage on a suicide flight, then leave it along with an incriminating note in his car at the airport?

To make it appear that he was a normal, everyday joe - the note was pure stupidity.

* As for the overall investigation into the September attacks, by late October U.S. authorities conceded that most of their promising leads for finding accomplices and some of their long-held suspicions about several suspects have unraveled, according to The New York Times. Since more than 800 people have been arrested and more than 365,000 tips have been received from the public, why has nothing substantial has been forthcoming in the largest U.S. criminal investigation in history?

No idea

* Why are none of the nearly 100 people still being sought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation seen as a major suspect?

They're accomplices.

* Why are we bombing Afghanistan when apparently none of the listed hijackers were Afghans, but instead Arabs from various Middle Eastern nations? Since Iraq was implicated in the 1993 WTC attack, why are we not bombing that "rogue" nation?

Al Qaeda training camps.

* Why does the heavy drinking and searching for hookers by some of the hijackers in Boston, as reported by Reuters New Service, sound more like mercenaries carousing before a mission than pious religious fundamentalists about to meet their maker?

They wanted to have a good time before they died.

* How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals, the excuse for hustling President Bush all across the country on Sept. 11? Was this evidence of an inside job or was it, as reported by Fox News, evidence that former FBI employee and double agent Robert Hanssen delivered an updated version of the purloined computer software Promis to his Russian handlers who passed it along to bin Laden? Does this software, which was stolen from a US company during the Reagan Administration by Justice Department officials under Attorney General Ed Meese, allow outsiders carte blanch entrée to our top security computers? (Hanssen's last job before being arrested as a spy was to upgrade the FBI's intelligence computer systems.)

Could we have some links for this please?

* If United Flight 93 crashed as the result of a struggle between heroic passengers and the hijackers, why did witnesses tell of a second plane which followed it down, falling burning debris, no deep crater and crash wreckage spread over a six-mile area indicative of an aerial explosion?

Flight 93 was probably shot down, such information would be withheld in the interests of the deceased families who thought that they died bravely.

* Why did news outlets describe the throat-cutting and mutilation of passengers on Flight 93 with box cutters when Time magazine on Sept. 24 reported that one of the passengers called home on a cell phone to report, "We have been hijacked. They are being kind."?

Easily explained by the probability that they turned nasty on the passengers after the call was made.

Any more?

[edit]

ooh, synchronous posts

 

[Anonymous]

I found those questions on another site, some of the points can be explained away but theres still a lot of suspicion in it all. The best point made I would say has to be...

How could an obviously sophisticated terrorist plan involving perhaps as many as 100 persons and in the works for five years escape the notice of our intelligence services, especially the FBI and CIA? And why, instead of cashiering those responsible for this intelligence failure and totally restructuring these agencies, are we doubling their budgets? Will we now get twice as much failure as before?

Read what I posted on another thread...

America did receive warnings of imminent terrorist attacks during August and I think it was Putin who made a statement warning America "in the strongest possible terms" that terrorists were planning attacks using hijacked planes on American and Israeli symbols or interests. It seems strange that all the other countries were several steps ahead of America in forseeing 9/11.

 

[Anonymous]

The US were planning to attack Afghanistan before 9/11...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html

The US received prior warning of terrorist attacks...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/sept-j16.shtml


These are the only websites I could find using google but I'll do some more serching later to confirm these two statements.

 

[Anonymous]

Well I don't see it as proof of a conspiracy either but I'm just trying to look at all the pieces of the puzzle.

Do you remember that summit in Italy I think not long before 9/11? The place was heavily guarded and the riot police were heavily critisezed for being too brutal, they even shot one protester dead. After September 11th it emerged that the reason for all that was that intelligence had suggested that there was a plan to hijack a plane and crash it into the summit building.

This all seemed a little odd to me. The American goverment were quite adement that they never saw 9/11 comming. If various european intelligence agencies could forsee that attack then why didnt the CIA forsee 9/11?

 

[Anonymous]

* If United Flight 93 crashed as the result of a struggle between heroic passengers and the hijackers, why did witnesses tell of a second plane which followed it down, falling burning debris, no deep crater and crash wreckage spread over a six-mile area indicative of an aerial explosion?

One possibility here, that seems to fit the evidence, is that the aircraft simply fell apart due to extreme aerodynamic stresses. It is entirely possible that the struggle resulted in the aircraft being flown well outside of its normal flight envelope. For example if the aircraft had been put into a steep dive by the hi-jackers during the struggle, then a passenger (with no experience of flying the aircraft) in the process of attempting to correct the aircraft may have "pulled back to hard" on the stick, subjecting the airframe to forces beyond its design limit.

We now have the aircraft breaking up in the air. Now to address the other features.

The second plane following it down?
We know that there were two debris fields. Perhaps the eyewitness accounts of the "second plane" are actually sightings of the second major piece of debris falling. (This "second piece" must exist, otherwise there would have been no second debris field.)

Falling burning debris?
The aircraft fell apart due to the stresses outlined above. The flames could well be due to the ignition of a ruptured fuel tank. No great mystery.

No deep crater?
It depends on what is falling. Aircraft are manufactured out of thin metal sheets. The aircraft fragments are a lot less aerodynamic than the original aircraft and hence wouldn't be expected to achieve a huge terminal velocity.

Six mile debris field?
Actually two fields according to reports. Fits in with the hypothesis that the aircraft broke up at altitude.

Just an alternative explanation. (Of course it *could* also have been shot down, but that is not the *only* explanation.)

 

[Anonymous]

I'm no aviation expert but I'm a little sceptical of that scenario. I think its stretching the theory to far to suggest that the plane would brake up in mid air to such an extent through pilot error.

But I could be wrong.

BTW, check out here for a news clip looking at the shot down theory of Flight 93.

In fact that websites full of interestin clips to take a look at.

 

[Anonymous]

Airliners are rather fragile...they do tend rip themselves apart if you shake them about...