Michael Moore: 9/11 Could Be Inside Job

[Tyrant]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607Moore.htm

Michael Moore: 9/11 Could Be Inside Job Discusses Explosions in Buildings, Demands '100 Angles' of Pentagon Video, and Calls for a New Investigation-- "They Haven't Even Told Us Half the Truth." Aaron Dykes Jones Report Tuesday June 19, 2007 Academy Award winner Michael Moore answered questions on 9/11 truth during a sneak peak of his new documentary, SICKO, in New York. Our reporters were initially avoided by Moore, but he subsequently decided to approach We Are Change.org/ Infowars.com reporters for a discussion. Moore brought up his lingering questions on 9/11, which are a clear departure from the 'government negligence' picture he painted in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, released some three years ago.

Okay, Mike, here are some things to look into.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a powerful antiwar statement and needs to be supported for that reason. This coming election, we need to vote out the warhawks, both Republican and Democrat.

However, I would like to ask you a few questions regarding his implication that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11.

Question 1: If Saudi Arabia were behind 9-11, why didn't they leave the United States BEFORE the attack? It is an established fact that companies like Odigo received an advance warning of the 9-11 attacks before the hijacked planes had even left the ground, as reported in Ha'Aretz and the Washington Post. If the Saudis were behind 9-11 and were kind enough to warn Odigo, then why did they themselves wait until AFTER the attacks before they left, when the requirement for special permission from Bush would only call attention to their departure?

Question 2: Is Michael Moore aware that the video tape of Osama "confessing" to 9-11 has been proven a fake?

Question 3: Is Michael Moore aware that just ten days after 9-11, the FBI stated (and CNN reported) that the 9-11 perpetrators were using skillfully made fake IDs with identities stolen from Arab men?

Question 4: Is Michael Moore aware that FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft?

Question 5: Calling attention to the Anthrax letters case, in which letters which appeared to to be written by Arab Muslims contained Anthrax spores identified as coming from a US Government laboratory. Is Michael Moore aware that neither of the two suspects in the case, Dr. Stephen Hatfill or Dr.Philip Zack, are Arabs, and doesn't this case prove that Arabs are being framed for terror attacks in the United States?

Michael Moore rightly condemns the US Government for the USAPATRIOT act's draconian assault opon our rights. However, one of those rights is that nobody shall be declared guilty of a crime without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As Michael Moore professes a deep respect for American values, he should not glibly declare that someone is guilty of a crime without being able to make his case beyond that reasonable doubt.

There is a reasonable doubt.

And if Michael Moore is a reasonable man who respects American principles, he must acknowledge that.

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

Michael Moore rightly condemns the US Government for the USAPATRIOT act's draconian assault opon our rights. However, one of those rights is that nobody shall be declared guilty of a crime without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As Michael Moore professes a deep respect for American values, he should not glibly declare that someone is guilty of a crime without being able to make his case beyond that reasonable doubt.

From the article:

Moore told reporters, "I've had a number of firefighters tell me over the years and since Fahrenheit 9/11 that they heard these explosions-- that they believe there's MUCH more to the story than we've been told. I don't think the official investigations have told us the complete truth-- they haven't even told us half the truth."

He's stating what he believes, not presuming to state facts. He wants his questions answered, like most of us do.

 

[Tyrant]

From the article:
He's stating what he believes, not presuming to state facts. He wants his questions answered, like most of us do.

What exactly do you contest? Could you rephrase it? I'm a bit punchy.

it was the JOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!!!!!1111

Tyrant is an ass.

Could someone toss this spam out of here, and remind buttmunch this is a spam-free zone?

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

What exactly do you contest? Could you rephrase it? I'm a bit punchy.

I just felt the "reasonable doubt/he should not glibly declare that someone is guilty" was a tad melodramatic.

 

[headvoid]

If Saudi Arabia were behind 9-11, why didn't they leave the United States BEFORE the attack?

Al Queda was originally and is still funded in part by many large Saudi families. It is a generalisation to say that Saudi was behind the attacks from the hard evidence on show. It would be like saying Britain was behind the 7/7 tube bombings because all the manpower, money and equipment came from there.

It is an established fact that companies like Odigo received an advance warning of the 9-11 attacks before the hijacked planes had even left the ground, as reported in Ha'Aretz and the Washington Post.

The company is an instant messaging service, two of their employees in Israel got an anonymous message - what has this got to do with Saudi?

Question 2: Is Michael Moore aware that the video tape of Osama "confessing" to 9-11 has been proven a fake?

LOL, they may have edited it to their own advantage - but really Tyrant - the arguements are wet tissue, you put your finger right through them and all you find are arseholes.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
read it, tell me you are convinced by their piss poor arguements.

Question 3: Is Michael Moore aware that just ten days after 9-11, the FBI stated (and CNN reported) that the 9-11 perpetrators were using skillfully made fake IDs with identities stolen from Arab men?

What exactly does this prove? They weren't going to be using Russian or Chilean identities. It proves nothing.

Question 4: Is Michael Moore aware that FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft?

there is no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers

That is a statement of fact, they used fake ID's - and the point is?

Question 5: Calling attention to the Anthrax letters case, in which letters which appeared to to be written by Arab Muslims contained Anthrax spores identified as coming from a US Government laboratory. Is Michael Moore aware that neither of the two suspects in the case, Dr. Stephen Hatfill or Dr.Philip Zack, are Arabs, and doesn't this case prove that Arabs are being framed for terror attacks in the United States?

So, you decide to send anthrax in the post - what current terrorist group do you pretend to be? a) Arab Muslim b) IRA c) revolutionary peoples front of judea? The letters which appeared to be written. It's all wet tissue Tyrant.

 

[Tyrant]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/questionsformichaelmoore.html

I often copy and paste the editorial comments or editorials themselves at WF, or at least used to. I promise not to do it again here.

 

[headvoid]

it was obviously a cut and paste, that's why I gave you a link within the website you cut from. meh

 

[The Dork Lord]

Did the CIA train Bin Laden? Or did they not?

And didn't someone from the FBI come under fire for possible 9/11 involvement?

 

[jack]

Did the CIA train Bin Laden? Or did they not?

And didn't someone from the FBI come under fire for possible 9/11 involvement?

Bin Laden used to be a Freedom Fighter during the russian Georgian fiasco. He was on our side, which was why we trained and supplied him.

As far as 9/11 goes, it's already been shown that the buildings were planned demolitions, that no plane ever hit the Pentagon and that we've been HAD.

 

[jack]

WMD/Iraq anyone?

 

[Malarky]

it was the JOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!!!!!1111

Shut the fuck up.

 

[Kim Nyholm]

Bin Laden used to be a Freedom Fighter during the russian Georgian fiasco. He was on our side, which was why we trained and supplied him.

Are you saying that bin Laden was a freedom fighter in Soviet Georgia?

It helps to actually know stuff before you start spewing about it, gnome.

 

[CaptainWacky]

Why would the building have to be "planned demolitions" anyway when TWO PLANES WERE GOING TO FLY INTO THEM? Even if they hadn't fallen it still would have made the news!

 

[Kim Nyholm]

Bin Laden used to be a Freedom Fighter during the russian Georgian fiasco.

It's always funny watching a dumb guy try to pretend that he actually knows something. There ought to be a TV show, like "Retards Say The Darndest Things."

 

[jack]

Why would the building have to be "planned demolitions" anyway when TWO PLANES WERE GOING TO FLY INTO THEM? Even if they hadn't fallen it still would have made the news!

They would have never fallen on ther own. They'd still be up with gaping fucking holes in them, probably.

 

[jack]

It's always funny watching a dumb guy try to pretend that he actually knows something. There ought to be a TV show, like "Retards Say The Darndest Things."

I smell another pwnership coming on. How quickly we forget...

COMMENTARY
CIA's Tracks Lead in Disastrous Circle

By ROBERT SCHEER

So, we've come full circle. The CIA, which originally helped train Osama bin Laden and many of the other terrorists who have turned against us, now will have its powers expanded to do more of the same.

Of course, the CIA did not traffic with Islamic fanatics on its own initiative but was following a policy proclaimed by President Reagan of support for "the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters."

There's something absurd in the sentiment of congressional leaders, who the New York Times reported Sunday "have concluded that American spy agencies should be allowed to combat terrorism with more aggressive tactics, including the hiring of unsavory foreign agents." When did the CIA stop hiring "unsavory" agents? Like Bin Laden, the CIA recruited "freedom fighters" from throughout the Islamic world to overthrow the secular government in Kabul that was backed by the Soviets. Bin Laden was no minor recruit to the cause but, given his wealthy father's close ties to the Saudi royal family, was received by the Afghans and Pakistanis on the highest levels and embraced by them up to the days preceding the disastrous attack on the U.S.

Bin Laden turned against the U.S. as a consequence of the Gulf War, when the Saudi leadership rejected his advice to rely on native fighters and instead turned over the country's defense to the U.S. military, which overwhelmed that underpopulated desert kingdom with the bravado of more than half a million troops. The much-proclaimed success of former President Bush's Gulf War, despite the enormous civilian "collateral damage"�a horror never acknowledged in this country�did not topple Saddam Hussein but left a bitter trail of anti-U.S. fervor. When Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, he found many willing Muslim recruits. Like Bin Laden, those identified as the perpetrators of the recent debacle were raised in the bosom of indulgent Arab oil states that financed their education abroad, including years of flight school for at least one of the Saudi pilots who smashed into the World Trade Center. They're far more skilled than the terrorists of the past.

But it's nonsense to suggest that the CIA has been hamstrung in going after Bin Laden, when President Clinton specifically empowered it to do so three years ago. As Bob Woodward and Vernon Loeb reported in the Washington Post last week: "The CIA has been authorized since 1998 to use covert means to disrupt and preempt terrorist operations planned abroad by Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden under a directive signed by President Bill Clinton and reaffirmed by President Bush this year, according to government sources."

Bin Laden's operation has been under constant surveillance; Clinton ordered the blasting of his training camps in response to a previous terrorist attack. If Bin Laden was responsible for this most recent attack, it represents nothing less than a startling failure of U.S. intelligence.

Ironically, under our new president, U.S. policy even had tilted toward the view that we could work with the Taliban thugs who have harbored Bin Laden, as evidenced last May when U.S. drug enforcement officials visited the country and celebrated that regime's success in limiting opium production. "Taliban's Ban on Poppy a Success, U.S. Aides Say" was the New York Times headline, with glowing endorsements from U.S. officials. The story reported, "The sudden turnaround by the Taliban, a move that left international drug experts stunned ... opens the way for American aid to the Afghan farmers who have stopped planting poppies. On [May 17], Secretary of State Colin L. Powell announced a $43-million grant to Afghanistan in additional emergency aid to cope with the effects of a prolonged drought. The United States has become the biggest donor to help Afghanistan in the drought." Powell issued a statement that the U.S. would "continue to look for ways to provide more assistance to the Afghans."


This is typical of the mixed signals we've been sending. Call it what you will, even humanitarian aid, and funnel it through the United Nations, but the effect is the same: to send to the Taliban a signal that its support of Bin Laden has been somehow acceptable.

From the beginning, over the last 20 years, our entire Afghan policy has provided a reminder of the dangers of "blowback," a phrase used to describe the turning of the machinations of U.S. intelligence agencies against our own nation. Yet, in the desperation of the moment, Congress now wants to empower the CIA to do more of the same.

Like the Taliban, Al Qaeda sprang from the "freedom fighters" recruited by the US to fight the Soviet-backed Afghan regime. From "First, Know the Enemy, Then Act" by Dale F. Eickelman. In the LA Times, 12/9/01:

That was Soviet Georgia as I recall. They actually beat up the Russians in that fighting, thanks to our training. So shut the fuck up about things you don't remember, Hunchie. Stick to masturbating into little girl shoes and being a webmaster for http://www.screwmagforever.com

 

[jack]

Are these people still alive?

 

[Kim Nyholm]

I smell another pwnership coming on. How quickly we forget...

That was Soviet Georgia as I recall.

Wroung. It was AFGHANISTAN, not Soviet Georgia. Try "pwning" yourself a brain, you dopey little dwarf.

 

[CaptainWacky]

They would have never fallen on ther own. They'd still be up with gaping fucking holes in them, probably.

My point was that surely the planes flying into the buildings would be enough, without having to bring them down with some risky controlled explosion that could be later exposed (funny how no one involved in planting the explosives has come forward.)

 

[jack]

Yeah I agree, Wacky. The architect that built the buildings said at this meeting in Stowe after 9/11 that it was most definitely a planned controlled explosion.