It's such a solemn day for me–I lost a cousin who worked at Aon, the insurance conglamorate that was practically eliminated that day.

9/11 should be a national day of remembrance. We need to remember these things:

**4,000 folks died that day at the Pentagon and in NYC.
**Osama Bin Laden is not an Iraqi.
**Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11.
**A president's claim otherwise will not change facts.

There are high school seniors today who were in fourth grade when that horrible day changed our lives. Not many fourth graders pay close attention to the news. If we don't remind ourselves, regularly, that we chased our tails for years afterward in Iraq, folks might start to believe the hype thrust upon us by the neocons.

Today, I pray for the families of 9/11, and for our service men and women and their families, that they might be home soon. And, when they are home, their medical needs are handled fully. And for the souls of our national leaders who used 9/11 to play war games.

I am not trying to get smart with you, but what would your response have been? You have made it abundantly clear you hate George Bush and he's a moron, so that's cool, you have that right. But what would you, President Think Again, have done on that day or after in response? Again, we know what you wouldn't do.

8 years ago our greatest threat was outside out borders. Today I think it is inside – a Government Gone Wild, bent on destroying capitalism, the individual's motivation to advance and succeed, personal financial stability, and heading towards an era where Uncle Sam is supposed to do everything for everybody all the time for 'free.'

I remember the days when I bought my first home and a 'good' interest rate was a 13% ARM but they went up to as much as 17% or more for fixed rates.

That was a bad time. But it's going to seem like 'the good old days' before long.

Why does it not surprise me, Think Again, that you would use this 'solemn day' to take a jab at George W. Bush? What a pathetic human being you are. And by the way, Bin Laden is not from Afghanistan either. And he is not a member of the Taliban. So why are our efforts in the war there more noble?
You pray for our troops, while supporting a president and political party that undermine their efforts for purely political reasons? You're quite a patriot!

Today President Obama extended our national emergency out another year. Yet, we still don't know what really happened on 9/11. Everyone should read Charlie Sheen's 20 questions regarding 9/11 that he presents for our President. We were promised transparency. I would like it now, please.

TA…I didn't care much for old W. either.

Wow, Melyssa! You believe our government brought down the towers, too? ……and I thought you were one of the sane posters here…

I'm sorry Melyssa, but, with all due respect, there was no 9/11 conspiracy. Such a conspiracy would have required the involvement of ttens of thousands of people all pledging to never reveal the conspiracy. All the conspiracy claims have been thoroughly refused by scientific studies. The “truthers” don't have any explanation for how all these events happened – they just questioin certain details and when they get proven wrong, they move on to another detail.

The JFK assassination is a much more plausible conspiracy, though even that was not a conspiracy. My personal favorite is the moon landing, though even that would require a large number of conspirators that would have never remained quiet. People like to talk, especially if it would give them their 15 minutes of fame.

I don't know how you completely stop profiling or stereotyping. When current events, statistics or history say to be concerned, then you're going to pay attention, whether in line at an airport, walking the streets at night, or eyeing the guy taking your daughter out. It's like yesterday's, “When should we draw the line in benefits to the elderly?”, or, “What is obscenity?”
.
I'd like to hear any new facts on 9/11, the Kennedy assasination, President Obama's past, etc. Things are sometimes filtered or hidden from us. Sometimes not. Sometimes it makes no difference.

I don't know if there was a conspiracy. I read the 9/11 Commission Report, and it is enlightening, but it leaves as many questions unanswered as otherwise.

Anji, you ask a great question. Hindsight is 20-20 of course. Here's a short list of my Do/Don't After 9/11:

1. Immediately form a commission to inevstigate–W fought it for a year or more
2. Isolate the Saudis. Almost all the hijackers were Saudi-based or residents…and we knew that wihtin 48 hours.
3. As soon as we were relatively certain it was Al Queda–again, we knew it almost immediately–I'd have used the drones to fly-over their known hideouts and bomb them to hell and back. Those hideouts at the time, were in the Afghan hills, some isolated areas of Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
4. Penetrate the intelligence community with political operatives whom I trusted 100%, and make sure the CIA, et al had given me the best intelligence they had. It's pretty clear they repsonded more to Cheney's outrageous demands, than to pure intelligence.
5. Whatever roadblocks occured in getting No. 4, fire everyone within two pay grades of the obstructors.

Remember, we went into Iraq a long time after 9/11. The evidence was clear, but we did it anyway. History already isn't kind about that decision.

Rico, once you pull yourself into reality, you'll see that whether you love or hat W, his decisions were completely idiotic. He's entitled–I think our incumbent may make some similar decisions.

But when those decisions involve severe manipulation of intelligence, and the welfare of 125,000 troops, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars, and destroyed worldwide credibility, we need to think twice.

I'd have reserved the military for clear and overwhelming evidence that a nation's leaders were directly responsible for 9/11. No such evidence existed then, or now. Not even close. When you mobilize an Army, the whole world watches. As they should.

And one more thing I'd do, or would have done: direct the VA to immediately beef-up its efforts to handle returning GIs. Bush and his Congressional allies actually fought VA funding increases.

The evidence was clear? To what evidence are you referring? The evidence by virtually every intelligence organization in the world that Saddam had WMD's?
How about the decision not to take Bin Laden into custody by W's predecessor? Would that have prevented the 9/11 attacks? Who knows? But it very likely could have.
Barry believes terrorists should be read their Miranda rights on the battlefield. How idiotic is that?

Seems to have drifted some from the topic but keeping an eye on Muslims seems to be a good idea as trials here and in the UK make clear. Belloc's view of those heretics should be instructive although Regensburg made clear the moral vacuum existing at its center. Cheney's recent comments about national security seem well founded.

Read the 9/11 report Rico.. We knew it was Bin Laden within 48 hours.. We knew within 50 Sq.Mi the area from which he launched his attack directives.

ANd it sure as hell wasn't Iraq.

I'll grant you this: for some stupid reason(s), the intelligence community really let W down. I cannot understand why, because he and Cheney loved them, and wanted to expand their ability too surveil domestically, among other things. But they did let them down. Big time.

The Al-Queda confirmation came, coincidentally, from the Saudis directly. What a sad/funny state of affairs THAT is.

Gee, I actually fought in Iraq and was quite satisfied with the reasons given for attacking. Not once did I hear from my leadership a reason having to do with 9/11. I was told that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had violated UN Resolution 1441 and repeatedly (over 17 times) refused to comply with the terms therein. If you recall, Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, reported to the UN on 7 March 2003, that Iraq had refused to comply with the terms of 1441 and (among other things) had no accountability of over 1000 tons of VX nerve agent. That sure was good enough reason for me to put my life on the line and strap my butt into an Apache almost every day for a year.

You seem to have been reading too much Oliver Stone and Michael Moore pablum.

Surveil domestically anyone communicating with known terrorists, TA. Folks like yourself seem to always conveniently leave that out.

Attack–you were there, and I'm very grateful for your service. But we were here, and we were told, over and over, that we went to Iraq to defeat Al Queda, our sworn 9/11 enemy. From George's mouth to our ears.

Getting Saddam was a nice bonus, I'll grant you. He was a despot who tortured his own people. But he'd done so for over 15 years, in direct violation of a half-dozen humanitarian-based UN resolutions. And if that's the criteria for us to invade anywhere, I can name five other nations who desperately need our invasions today.

We were duped–plainly and simply.

You can't pick and choose form the UN's weapons reports–they definitively said WMDs were not observed, even when they said they couldn't account for thousands of tons of nerve gas. We ordered the UN inspectors out to prepare for our invasion.

I don't pay much attention to Oliver and Michael. Don't jump to conclusions. And don't swallow every hook you're given about the real reasons for invading Iraq. Once we did, I'd have liked to have seen a clear mission with a definitive exit strategy. We went in half-assed, with not enough troops or armor to accomplish the mission. Whatever that mission was.

My first cousin's son, a California NGer, has been three times and is about to go back for a fourth. He was in the first wave, and had **zero** body armor as he entered Tikrit. His family sent him a vest, and he got written up for accepting and wearing a civy-provided garment. His entire first tour, four and a half months, were spent without proper defensive attire. He didn't have enough food–we sent him pre-packaged soups and meals. He got two scorpion bites that were untreated for a long time because of scarce medical personnel. You were there. Certainly you had to have heard the same stories.

We should never have gone, and we weren't ready when we did go. It served no worthwhile purpose with the possible exception of rooting out Saddam and his goofy sons. There are equally ugly and disgusting czarist leaders in Africa who slaughter their citizenry in the name of power and money, on a weekly basis. We're not rushing there, even though the UN has passed umpteen resolutions decrying the dictators.

Oh yeah–my cousin's son has enough combat time and duty points to get a bachelor's degree damned near free. He's started classes three times, only to be summoned back because our regular-force strength is insufficient, without NGers, to meet the demands.

“Mission Accomplished” huh?

You are exactly right attackav8r. Nobody said we were going into Iraq because of 9/11. Our government never said that. People are getting confused over the timing. One can question whether we should have gone into Iraq, but it's unfair to say govenrment justified it because of 9/11. They did not. It was because of the possibility Iraq had WMD and violated UN resolutions, including by not allowing inspectors into the country. Whether in hindsight that was sufficient or accurate evidence can be debated.

TA,

“Attack–you were there, and I'm very grateful for your service. But we were here, and we were told, over and over, that we went to Iraq to defeat Al Queda, our sworn 9/11 enemy.”

That's absolutely not true. That was certainly not the reason we went in. It's why we went into Afghanistan, but when the Iraq invasion happened 9/11 was not cited as a reason for the invasion. There was some effort afterwards to make a connection between the two but that effort fizzled badly.

This was sent to me today….

Do you remember 1987…….

Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information……….
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of
Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan
Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security
system?'
Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.' The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?' 'No, sir,' continued Ollie. 'No? And why not?' the senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.' 'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered. 'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so
afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to
eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!

Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release
so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, 'insisted' that all prisoners be
released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center .. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.

I know the North part is true I've seen the tapes. AS far as Atta…I've heard this from several sources. Sorry Abdul but if this is true America needs to keep her eyes and ears open. If that requires profiling then so be it.

IE, sure about what you saw on those tapes? Abu Nidal ring a bell?

I think you're right, Rocker. I remember Ollie testifying about Abu Nidal. (Incidentally, for all of you who think Saddam had no ties to terrorism, Nidal was trained in Baghdad.)

Have you we-were-duped-into-Iraq people not been paying attention for the past 3 or 4 years? You haven't read or heard of the report which conclusively demonstrates that A) Saddam lied about still having WMD's because he feared Iran B) He was so out of it he even lied to his own generals and kept them in the dark about each other and C) Mossad was paying said generals for information, who all agreed that there were weapons.

Jimmy Carter gutted foreign intelligence/surveillance. Ronald Reagan reinstituted it as far as Russia, but we didn't have a thing in the Middle East through most of the Clinton administration. This notion that our government duped MI-6, Mossad, etc. by giving them false information that they then gave BACK to us it's absurd. A rudimentary knowledge of the history of foreign intelligence in this country yields the truth, if you can make eye contact with it when it's staring you straight in the face. Have some respect people.

George W. Bush never said we went into Iraq because of 9/11. And the WMD reason was just one of many reasons for the invasion. Quit trying to re-write history to fit your distorted view of America's motives, TA. Some of us have simply had enough of it.

I listened intently to the administration's arguments for going into Iraq. The direct link to 9-11 was emotional, visceral, and powerful–if only it were true. A few selected Bush/Cheney quotes for you no-believers:

“But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take.”
Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003)

“And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons.”
Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.”
Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there.”
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).

Excuse me, the last quote was Cheney…forgot to type that

Rocker you may be right…however, I do remember Al Gore laughing at and making fun of, the idea of a terrorist doing harm on American soil.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

“Oliver Twisted

“Claim: During the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings, Oliver North warned Congress that Osama bin Laden was “the most evil person alive” and that “an assassin team [should] be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.”

“FALSE

“Oliver North did not testify about or mention the name Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. He claimed that threats against his life had been made by terrorist Abu Nidal”

I am pretty sure that anyone with the name Abdul ought to be profiled endlessly.

I'm pretty sure anyone with the name Abdul ought to be profiled endlessly.

I was at school doing door duty because ISTEP was going on. The choir dept. secretary asked me if I had heard about the World Trade Center, and I then became aware of the horror. It was a terrible day. What I remember most is the absolute silence around the airport. I lived five minutes from the old terminal (and now about 10 minutes from the new one) and have grown so used to hearing plane sounds, noise, etc. There was nothing that night or for the next couple of days. It was eerie.

I disagree, Paul. All one would need would be the authority to change rules of engagement and procedures, control of security at a few critical airports, and a foreign organization who would benefit if their security organization handed the bulk of the dirty work.

I can point to senior security officials in the US with decades worth of high level federal security background who have publicly stated that 9/11 could not have happened without inside cooperation. I can point to changes in policy that placed Cheney in charge of all federal anti-terror preparation and response, and I can point you to changes in intercept policy where command and control was dedicated to the office of the Vice President for intercept scenarios – where in the 12 months prior to 9/11 there were 67 recorded intercepts for lesser violations than on 9/11.

I can also point to evidence that foreign operatives were stopped by bomb sniffing dogs leaving Manhattan over the GWB (I remember hearing those reports live on the radio), that associates of those operatives were witnessed filming the FIRST impact, and that all were released by local authorities on orders from federal officials – which was locally run by Chertoff who is currently in charge of Homeland Security and holds dual-nationality with the same country whose operatives were released.

If you believe that there is zero complicity by the federal government in 9/11 you are either in denial, you trust corporate controlled government and media, you have not conducted your homework, or you don't have the logic capacity to establish conduct your own research (which is the only way to understand reality in the face of lying media and government).

As a final comment on this matter, I'm personally disgusted by Sheen's actions. Based on his comments I believe that he was put up to this or is highly ignorant. By raising questions on items that are easy to disprove, like the “no plane at the Pentagon” theory, Sheen is setting up the legitimate questions to be discredited in a single broad sweep. It's a well known tactic called “poisoning the well”.

As far as the claims that scientific studies have all been refuted etc, I can tell you one thing for certain: the corporate finance community is very concerned and is working overtime to spread those opinions. They bought out and replaced the entire editorial staff at Popular Mechanics in order to allow Nicholas Chertoff's cousin to run a 9/11 Hit Piece and they've produced more than one documentary for cable television with a goal of distorting the facts around 9/11 in order to discredit the real issues.

For example, do any of the refutations ever cover the testimony of Norm Minetta and his activities on the morning of 9/11? He was Sec. Transportation, underground with Cheney as they tracked the incoming flight into DC. It's public record that they were aware of the hijacked aircraft and monitoring them.

How about the whereabouts of Gen. Meyers, chairman of the JCS? He claims to have been in a meeting in senate offices on the Hill, and therefore, he didn't know about the attacks until they were over, so he was unable to respond. If you believe him, you have zero understanding of how things take place in Washington or the upper echelons within our military. Public records also show that just before the attacks, the generals in charge of the NMCC at the Pentagon and the crisis management facility at NORAD were both replaced unexpectedly.

And although there are 100's more relevant questions (not the bogus issues raised in media to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement), I'll leave you with the dog that did not bark: We all know that in crisis it's the Secret Service's job to do whatever it takes to secure the President. The record shows that Condi Rice (who was with the President on 9/11) was informed of the first hijacked aircraft before it hit the Pentagon. The Secret Service was aware of two hijackings when the first tower was struck. The President had been warned one month earlier in a later released briefing that terrorists would attempt to use commercial airplanes (FYI – a public memo went around the Pentagon to avoid commercial flights in early September) to hit US targets (Cheney was monitoring, according to Norm Minetta, yet intercept flights, which were officially delegated to Cheney by the White House, were diverted overseas from Langley AFB rather than over DC from Andrews AFB where interceptors were on permanent standby. All public record, for those who distrust the media and government and prefer to get the real story on their own.

But getting back to the dog that didn't bark, President Bush was at a public speaking venue in a known unsecured location while the Secret Service was aware that a warning was in place regarding terror attacks, attacks were currently under way using airliners, and multiple airliners were in transit above and near the Presidents current location. Yet they did nothing. They allowed him to remain on camera and made no attempt to rescue him from a possible attack, whether it was from an airplane overhead or some other source on the ground.

You can deny all you want. You can point to the rediculous claims of many so-called 9/11 Truthers (yes, most of the claims presented by mainstream media are rediculous), but you cannot deny the public record. Foreign operatives were caught and arrested with explosive materials and filming the first impact – and then celebrating. They were all released by a man who was promoted to head our national security. Procedure and policy were changed to place the Vice President in charge of anti-terror operations and in charge of errant flight intercepts. Look it up (and don't stop when you find the fact at some goofball website – you'll find it at an official location if you dig). Our senior military leadership was out of the loop – check it out. And the SS and NSA were both with the President and aware of the threat yet did nothing to secure him while the attacks were unfolding.

I guess my final thoughts on the matter are to please don't simply follow the work of others. Find confirmable facts that the media and government isn't including, and THINK. What story do the facts reveal? Why AREN'T the media and government discussing them? My conclusion is that on 9/11, we were duped into following the path recommended in 1997 by Zbigniew Brzezinski – to catalyze the American people into supporting a global strategic military effort to establish global economic predominance – starting with Central Asia. Brzezinski is now Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor. In the last 8 years we've met more than 50% of his published 1997 objectives.

Correction: Condi was aware of the first hijacked plane before it hit the WTC, not the Pentagon.

I was at school doing door duty because ISTEP was going on. The choir dept. secretary asked me if I had heard about the World Trade Center, and I then became aware of the horror. It was a terrible day. What I remember most is the absolute silence around the airport. I lived five minutes from the old terminal (and now about 10 minutes from the new one) and have grown so used to hearing plane sounds, noise, etc. There was nothing that night or for the next couple of days. It was eerie.

I disagree, Paul. All one would need would be the authority to change rules of engagement and procedures, control of security at a few critical airports, and a foreign organization who would benefit if their security organization handed the bulk of the dirty work.

I can point to senior security officials in the US with decades worth of high level federal security background who have publicly stated that 9/11 could not have happened without inside cooperation. I can point to changes in policy that placed Cheney in charge of all federal anti-terror preparation and response, and I can point you to changes in intercept policy where command and control was dedicated to the office of the Vice President for intercept scenarios – where in the 12 months prior to 9/11 there were 67 recorded intercepts for lesser violations than on 9/11.

I can also point to evidence that foreign operatives were stopped by bomb sniffing dogs leaving Manhattan over the GWB (I remember hearing those reports live on the radio), that associates of those operatives were witnessed filming the FIRST impact, and that all were released by local authorities on orders from federal officials – which was locally run by Chertoff who is currently in charge of Homeland Security and holds dual-nationality with the same country whose operatives were released.

If you believe that there is zero complicity by the federal government in 9/11 you are either in denial, you trust corporate controlled government and media, you have not conducted your homework, or you don't have the logic capacity to establish conduct your own research (which is the only way to understand reality in the face of lying media and government).

As a final comment on this matter, I'm personally disgusted by Sheen's actions. Based on his comments I believe that he was put up to this or is highly ignorant. By raising questions on items that are easy to disprove, like the “no plane at the Pentagon” theory, Sheen is setting up the legitimate questions to be discredited in a single broad sweep. It's a well known tactic called “poisoning the well”.

As far as the claims that scientific studies have all been refuted etc, I can tell you one thing for certain: the corporate finance community is very concerned and is working overtime to spread those opinions. They bought out and replaced the entire editorial staff at Popular Mechanics in order to allow Nicholas Chertoff's cousin to run a 9/11 Hit Piece and they've produced more than one documentary for cable television with a goal of distorting the facts around 9/11 in order to discredit the real issues.

For example, do any of the refutations ever cover the testimony of Norm Minetta and his activities on the morning of 9/11? He was Sec. Transportation, underground with Cheney as they tracked the incoming flight into DC. It's public record that they were aware of the hijacked aircraft and monitoring them.

How about the whereabouts of Gen. Meyers, chairman of the JCS? He claims to have been in a meeting in senate offices on the Hill, and therefore, he didn't know about the attacks until they were over, so he was unable to respond. If you believe him, you have zero understanding of how things take place in Washington or the upper echelons within our military. Public records also show that just before the attacks, the generals in charge of the NMCC at the Pentagon and the crisis management facility at NORAD were both replaced unexpectedly.

And although there are 100's more relevant questions (not the bogus issues raised in media to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement), I'll leave you with the dog that did not bark: We all know that in crisis it's the Secret Service's job to do whatever it takes to secure the President. The record shows that Condi Rice (who was with the President on 9/11) was informed of the first hijacked aircraft before it hit the Pentagon. The Secret Service was aware of two hijackings when the first tower was struck. The President had been warned one month earlier in a later released briefing that terrorists would attempt to use commercial airplanes (FYI – a public memo went around the Pentagon to avoid commercial flights in early September) to hit US targets (Cheney was monitoring, according to Norm Minetta, yet intercept flights, which were officially delegated to Cheney by the White House, were diverted overseas from Langley AFB rather than over DC from Andrews AFB where interceptors were on permanent standby. All public record, for those who distrust the media and government and prefer to get the real story on their own.

But getting back to the dog that didn't bark, President Bush was at a public speaking venue in a known unsecured location while the Secret Service was aware that a warning was in place regarding terror attacks, attacks were currently under way using airliners, and multiple airliners were in transit above and near the Presidents current location. Yet they did nothing. They allowed him to remain on camera and made no attempt to rescue him from a possible attack, whether it was from an airplane overhead or some other source on the ground.

You can deny all you want. You can point to the rediculous claims of many so-called 9/11 Truthers (yes, most of the claims presented by mainstream media are rediculous), but you cannot deny the public record. Foreign operatives were caught and arrested with explosive materials and filming the first impact – and then celebrating. They were all released by a man who was promoted to head our national security. Procedure and policy were changed to place the Vice President in charge of anti-terror operations and in charge of errant flight intercepts. Look it up (and don't stop when you find the fact at some goofball website – you'll find it at an official location if you dig). Our senior military leadership was out of the loop – check it out. And the SS and NSA were both with the President and aware of the threat yet did nothing to secure him while the attacks were unfolding.

I guess my final thoughts on the matter are to please don't simply follow the work of others. Find confirmable facts that the media and government isn't including, and THINK. What story do the facts reveal? Why AREN'T the media and government discussing them? My conclusion is that on 9/11, we were duped into following the path recommended in 1997 by Zbigniew Brzezinski – to catalyze the American people into supporting a global strategic military effort to establish global economic predominance – starting with Central Asia. Brzezinski is now Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor. In the last 8 years we've met more than 50% of his published 1997 objectives.

Correction: Condi was aware of the first hijacked plane before it hit the WTC, not the Pentagon.