Elonka wrote:

] this investigation. I also really despise any insinuation
] that the White House knew about the impending attack but did
] nothing to stop it. That's just absurd.

How about August 6th, 2001? Bush received an intelligence briefing that mentioned hijackings. So says Condoleeza Rice. She qualified that though by saying it was only an "analytic brief." Sure, whatever.

The House and Senate intelligence committees wrote a joint report on Sept. 18th, 2002 about 9/11. In that report, it was stated that in July of 2001 "senior government officials" were warned of:

"a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties ... (it) will occur with little or no warning."

I don't consider it absurd that the White House knew. As for whether they allowed it to happen, it is kind of scary to think they would do that. Off-course airplanes were intercepted 67 times in 2001 prior to 9/11 as part of standard operating procedures. With the apparent stand-down orders for our air defense on 9/11, it seems pretty obvious to me it was an inside job.

The FAA was putting out plenty of warnings that summer about threats. I could list them all but a Google search for "9/11 warnings" will show plenty of documented warnings.

Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines during the summer of 2001. He stopped based on FBI threat assessments. When he was asked by reporters if he knew anything about the threat, his answer was, "Frankly, I don't." Another time when asked, he simply walked out of his office.

The Justice Department did come out and say it was "completely unrelated" to 9/11, citing nonspecific threats against his life. Not that Ashcroft's Justice Department would try to cover for him or anything, I mean, I'm not insinuating *THAT* :)

All in all, it's kind of sad that the 9/11 commission's work is wrapping up during an election year. People like me, who aren't going to vote Republican or Democrat, Bush or Kerry, we don't care about either party. But since many people do, it cheapens the whole thing to partisan politics. This should have been done as soon as the attacks took place. That it's taken this long to get where we are is a shame. I hate the timing because it's in an election year. It becomes too convenient for both sides to turn it into just another campaign issue instead of investigating the biggest terrorist attack on US soil in our history.

There are so many facts around 9/11 that are suspicious that it's hard to digest all at once, even if you do have an open mind to it. I'm a skeptic by nature. Consider this:

"An average of 3,053 put options in Merrill Lynch are bought between September 6-10, compared to an average of 252 in the previous week. Morgan Stanley, another WTC tenant, sees 12,215 put options bought between September 7-10, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day." -- Independent, 10/14/01

Hopefully everyone has heard about the similar AA and UAL put option spikes in the days up to 9/11. Why isn't this being investigated, pulled out of the woodwork to find the perpetrators? Who had foreknowledge? These questions remain unanswered and apparently a non-issue to the administration.

Another peculiar piece of 9/11 trivia:

"September 11, 2001: Warren Buffett, possibly the second richest man on Earth [Salon, 8/31/99], schedules a morning charity event inside Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. A number of CEOs who would otherwise have been in the WTC attend. Attendees had just arrived when the first WTC attack occurs. This base is the center of the nation's military defenses, and the same base that Bush will fly to later in the day. The timing, probable attendance, and location of the meeting is curious, to say the least, as is the total lack of any mention of the meeting anywhere, except for one aside by a business leader (Anne Tatlock, CEO and President of Fiduciary and Franklin) explaining why she survived the WTC attack. [San Francisco Business Times, 2/1/02]"

Circling back around to your statement though, we've been trying to get the truth since 9/11/2001 at approximately 8:45 Eastern time. For me, it did not begin in the last few months as the election season kicked up. I have been searching, questioning, weighing this for years now. It is one of the single most important issues to me in my life.

I did not buy the propaganda that day. The psychological operation did not work on me, it didn't take. When I heard they had magically found the passport for one of the hijackers that must have fluttered to the ground, I laughed. I thought, so this is what passes for news in the 21st century.

When the Bin Laden confession tape was trotted out, I laughed as the impostor sat there and smiled. His hairline, brow, and nose didn't match up with all of the other pictures of Bin Laden. It was a good job though, enough to fool the casual primarily broadcast news watching observer. I thought, wow, the mastermind behind 9/11 films himself confessing to it and leaves the tape for us to find. How convenient.

Do I think Bin Laden planned the attacks? Probably so. But I'm not forgetful of the CIA assets, the Muhajadeen. I don't forget that Bin Laden was once a CIA asset. That's a 20+ year history with us. I don't forget the special business relationship between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. When the most powerful empire in history has someone like Bin Laden on the payroll, you can be sure they know what he's up to at all times.

9/11 was framed in a much larger great game for hegemony in the Middle East. That game really started to involve the US when FDR started to offer the Saudi kingdom protection for oil. It's been going on for decades now, and we're entering the end game now with the peak of oil production upon us. And when that production peaks, economics will not take care of the shortfall. Ecology is not that simple. This is the highest staked game in our history.

[TINFOIL HAT ON]

I believe 9/11 was allowed to occur because there needed to be a trigger for the full-scale occupation of the Middle East. As Zbigniew Brzezinski states in his arrogant book "The Grand Chessboard"

- "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

- "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

Same thing the Project for a New American Century people were wanting, a "catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." Most of the PNAC planners are in the Bush administration now. Of course they'd want this for their agenda. What's a few million square feet of office space and some collateral damage compared with the unbridled extension of domestic power and occupation abroad? They would definately benefit from the attacks, no question.

I watched WTC7 undergo a controlled demolition that day. A 47 story, 600 foot tall building collapsed completely into its own footprint. Demolition squibs can be seen exploding from bottom to top along the edge of the building immediately prior to the collapse. Larry Silverstein is on record in a PBS documentary stating the decision was made to demolish the building and they watched collapse. When I show people the collapse videos and Larry talking about it, they get a deer in the headlights look and have nothing to say. The cognitive dissonance this causes some people is really a sight to behold. They are speechless because it cannot be denied.

The obvious questions become, "How could the building be rigged for controlled demolition that quick?" "Could WTC1 and WTC2 have been similarly demolished?" The answer is, we will probably never know because these questions are not being weighed seriously. The 9/11 commission has been a show trial, nothing more. The hard questions are not even being considered.

[TINFOIL HAT OFF]

So much to rant about really, so many data points, tangents, vectors, etc. But even if you ignore the rantings of a paranoid whacko godless communist anti-american terrorist-loving liberal revisionist conspiracy theorist like me, I hope that some of the data points available out there will appeal to you and help you despise less the insinuations that the White House had foreknowledge of 9/11.

For the nutcases like me though, it's a no-brainer.

BUSH KNEW

RE: Bush Agrees to Let Rice Testify Publicly