1
   

So, what really happened?

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 09:17 pm
Calm down, children. We will nab the nasty Bushies sooner or later -- probably sooner than he'll find bin Laden (now become the most fictitious character in contemporary history).
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 09:18 pm
Osama bin-Whom?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 09:23 pm
Sheesh -- the CNN transcript is really riveting, particularly (and they didn't say this) Prince Ahmed bin Salman is the one, I believe, who was flown out of a Florida airport accompanied by USAF personnel on 9/12. Not sure. Need to doublecheck.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 09:37 pm
Went googling to find verification the above tidbit and haven't found it yet, but stumbled on the following:

*** JAMES DORAN, TIMES, LONDON: The author Salman Rushdie believes that US authorities knew of an imminent terrorist strike when they banned him from taking internal flights in Canada and the US only a week before the attacks. On September 3 the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr. Rushdie from flying unless airlines complied with strict and costly security measures. Mr. Rushdie told The Times that the airlines would not upgrade their security. The FAA told the author's publisher that US intelligence had given warning of "something out there" but failed to give any further details. The FAA confirmed that it stepped up security measures concerning Mr. Rushdie but refused to give a reason.
http://www.productofmexico.com/war_updates/Randolph%20Bourne%209-28-01.htm
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 10:02 pm
Tartarin wrote:
We will nab the nasty Bushies sooner or later --


I hope you're right, it couldn't be too soon for me.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 10:25 pm
The Secret Saudi Flight on 9-13 Could be the Key to the Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda Connection

By Catherine Arnie

About a month after the September 11th attacks, I read an article in the Tampa Tribune by Kathy Steele entitled "Phantom Flight From Florida." The intriguing report told the tale of a flight out of Florida that allegedly took place on September 13 - a day when ALL civilian air traffic in the United States was grounded.
"This was out of a Tom Clancy movie," according to a retired homicide detective who was hired for the flight. Its mission was to spirit the son of a Saudi prince, the son of a Saudi army commander, and another unidentified Saudi from Florida to Kentucky, because "there was a perceived threat, and the family of the person wanted him home right away."
The "person" in danger was the son of Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, who is no minor figure in the Saudi Royal family. Rather, Prince Sultan is the kingdom's minister of defense, the third-ranking position in the Saudi Government, whose powers exceed those of even America's super-powerful Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez were the two Floridians who were hired to serve as private bodyguards on the flight.
According to the article in the Tampa Tribune, Dan Grossi is a retired Tampa cop who worked in internal affairs and homicide. Perez is a retired FBI man whose experience was in counter-terrorism and bomb-making. Perez now runs a detective agency and the two men provided security for the National Football League at Raymond James Stadium in September of 2001.
The article reported that shortly after the September 11 attack, Lexington police Lt. Mark Barnard received a request from a prominent Saudi Kingdom official for the protection of three young Saudi men in Florida, at least one of whom - Prince Sultan's son - had been studying English at the University of Tampa for three weeks. (Tampa police records listed Sultan Bin Fahad as the individual who specifically requested protection for the three men. That is probably Prince Sultan Bin Fahad, head of the Saudi General Presidency of Youth Welfare. In family-run Saudi Arabia, there is apparently a whole Ministry devoted to keeping Royal youth out of trouble - something the Bush family elders no doubt dream of copying.)
Apparently Barnard then contacted the Tampa police department and two "off-duty" Tampa intelligence detectives were assigned to watch the three Saudis for their protection. At around 11:00 AM on September 13, Dan Grossi received a phone call from the Tampa police detectives who needed help with a problem: escorting the Saudi men they were protecting on a flight to Kentucky.
Grossi and Perez evidently felt they were up to the task, and at 2:30 PM Grossi was contacted by the Tampa Police Department with specific instructions. And by 4:35 PM a plane carrying Grossi, Perez, Prince Sultan's son, the son of an unidentified Saudi military commander, and third unidentified Saudi, was in the air and en route to Kentucky. The private Lear jet flew from Ft. Lauderdale to Tampa, where it parked at Raytheon Airport Services, which owns a private hangar on the outskirts of the Tampa International airport.
(Tampa, of course, is home to General Tommy Franks and the Pentagon's Central Command (CentCom), which now rules Afghanistan and Iraq directly, and indirectly rules the entire oil-rich Middle East and Central Asia through its growing network of Halliburton-supplied military bases. Raytheon, of course, is the massive arms manufacturer that supplied many of the high-tech weapons used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tampa is also near Venice FL, where Mad Cow Morning News has exposed numerous secrets about the training of 9-11 pilots Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi at shadowy local flight schools. And Tampa is in Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush stole the 2000 election for his brother George, and where Jeb issued Executive Order 2001-261 to prepare the FL National Guard for a terrorist attack on 9-7-01.)
Their destination, according to the two bodyguards, was the Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky, where the three Saudis were to link up with relatives who were in Kentucky to purchase race horses.
Grossi and Perez further stated that upon landing they saw several 747's parked on the tarmac with Arabic writing. The article suggests that at least one of these 747's flew back to Saudi Arabia with the boys, although their Floridian chaperones appear to have left the airport before that occurred. If true, the flight of these 747's would validate at least part of the Michael Moore story about powerful Saudis being allowed to fly out of the U.S. on the second day of the prohibition of all civilian flights.
Perez stated that he was unaware of who their charges were until they landed. Both men told of what a strange feeling it was to fly in an almost empty sky, and Perez recalls asking the pilot, "We're not going to get shot down are we?" - a legitimate fear, given the fact that fighter jets were urgently patrolling the skies looking for any more terrorists.
Regarding the curious fact that the flight had taken place when all other air traffic was still grounded, Dan Grossi said "he was told that clearance for the flight had come from the White House after the Prince's family pulled a favor from former President Bush."
If so, this was no ordinary ex-Presidential favor. In debunking a Michael Moore-inspired Internet rumor about a secret flight of relatives of Osama Bin Laden, Snopes.com describes exactly how restricted the skies were that day:
The Federal Aviation Administration ordered all flights in the United States grounded immediately following the terrorist attacks, and that ban stayed in effect until September 13. (Even then, for that first day commercial carriers were either completing the interrupted flights of September 11 or were repositioning empty aircraft in anticipation of the resumption of full service. New passenger flights did not resume until the 14th.) During that two-day period of full lock-down, only the military and specially FAA-authorized flights that delivered life-saving medical necessities were in the air. The enforcement of the empty skies directive was so stringent that even after the United Network for Organ Sharing sought and gained FAA clearance to use charter aircraft on September 12 to effect time-critical deliveries of organs for transplant, one of its flights carrying a human heart was forced to the ground in Bellingham, Washington, 80 miles short of its Seattle destination, by two Navy F/A-18 fighters. (The organ completed its journey after being transferred to a helicopter.)
After reading the Tampa Tribune article, I distinctly remember blinking and checking the URL to see if I had accidentally clicked on a link to one of those "publications" that spots Elvis, or reports that ninety year old women have just given birth to Bigfoot's baby. But no, this was indeed the Tampa Tribune.
I remember wondering how on earth our government could have authorized a flight out of the country before they even knew who the perpetrators of the attacks were?
And further, why did the families of the young men "perceive a threat" when it wasn't yet clear on the 13th of September exactly WHO had attacked America or where they were from?
According to a transcript on the State Departments website of a statement given by a "Senior White House Official" on September 13 at 5:22 PM it had not yet been announced that Bin Laden was behind the attacks when protection was requested for the three young men.
When this "Senior White House official" was asked if Osama Bin Laden had perpetrated the attacks against the US at 5:22 PM on September 13th, to which he replied: "I think that right now what we need to do is -- as I said, again, this happened 60 hours ago. We don't want to be premature, not because we don't want to name or finger someone, but because we want to make sure that we understand all the connections, not just a connection."
Was Prince Sultan a psychic who somehow mysteriously predicted that 15 of the 19 hijackers would turn out to be Saudi nationals? Or did he perhaps know who was behind the attacks since he was funding charities linked to Al Qaeda?
Now fast forward about a year and a half and imagine my surprise last week when I read a "Newsweek web exclusive" that reported that Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz - THE VERY SAME defense minister of Saudi Arabia - is being sued on the behalf of the victims of 9-11 for his alleged role in the financing of groups suspected to have links to the terrorist attacks of 9-11!
"Wow," I thought, "wasn't this the SAME Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz who had the kid on the Phantom flight?"
After further checking, I discovered that - yes, my friends - they are one and the same!
According to the Newsweek article, when three attorneys from the "prestigious Houston firm" that represents Sultan bin Abdul Aziz filed a motion in court in the Prince's defense, they also inadvertently provided evidence in the form of "stacks of affidavits and canceled checks" that indicated that the Prince had personally authorized the funneling of millions of dollars on the behalf of Saudi Arabian government to organizations that the US has identified and raided as terrorist front operations sympathetic to Osama Bin Laden.
But it gets worse...
The name of the "prestigious Houston Law firm" that is representing this suspected supporter of terrorism?
Why that would be none other than Baker Botts of Houston - as in JAMES Baker, as in THE James Baker: George Herbert Walker Bush's former Secretary of State and George W. Bush's counsel during the 2000 election recounts (you know, "Mr. the votes have been counted and recounted and counted again and even though we still lost we're taking the crown"?)
It seems that in spite of the fact that Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and his government have been accused of funding charities linked to Al Qaeda, James Baker's firm still feels the need to defend the Prince against those "evil" trial lawyers representing the orphaned families of the 9-11 victims.
But perhaps what is just as shocking to me is the allegation that the son of this SAME Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz was reportedly flown out of the United States when all other planes were grounded following the special orders of Bush's own father!
Moreover, the entire 9-13 mission of the Lear jet is shrouded in mystery. That mission began in Ft. Lauderdale, stopped in Tampa and Lexington, and returned to Tampa to bring Grossi and Perez home. But then the jet flew to New Orleans "to pick up someone who needed a ride to New York." So this plane made AT LEAST 5 flights on 9-13, but the FAA told the Tampa Tribune, "it's not in our logs... it didn't occur." The White House, the State Department, and the National Security Council all refused to answer the Tribune's questions.
Now the Bush administration is refusing to make public an 800-page Congressional report on the attacks of 9-11. In fact, this administration is so hell-bent on keeping the report from the public that they are even "re-classifying" information that was already a part of the public record!
According to a new Newsweek bombshell by Michael Isikoff,
Among the portions of the report the administration refuses to declassify, sources say, are chapters dealing with two politically and diplomatically sensitive issues: the details of daily intelligence briefings given to Bush in the summer of 2001 and evidence pointing to Saudi government ties to Al Qaeda. Bush officials have taken such a hard line, sources say, that they are refusing to permit the release of matters already in the public domain -- including the existence of intelligence documents referred to on the CIA Web site.
As average citizens struggle to carry on their daily business and keep their blood pressure in check in the midst of a new "orange alert," Mr. Bush & Co. are still busy protecting their buddies in Saudi Arabia and lying to the American public.
Why can't we know the truth about who our enemies are, Mr. Bush?
One has to wonder when George W. said, "You're either with us or against us" - just exactly who he meant by "us." "Us" is beginning to look like a Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda conspiracy, especially when one includes the well-known business ties between George H. W. Bush, James Baker, and the Bin Laden family through the infamous Carlyle Group.
In a scandal this potentially huge - one implicating the President's close family and family lawyer - shouldn't a Special Prosecutor be appointed? If the President was Bill Clinton, the family member was Hillary Clinton, and the family lawyer was Webster Hubbell, the media - not to mention the Republican Party - would be demanding a Special Prosecutor at the top of their lungs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Even though the post-Watergate Special Prosecutor law was repealed after Ken Starr's legal lynching of President Clinton, pre-Watergate-style Special Prosecutors can still be appointed by the Attorney General.
http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=14289


For more 9/11 info from this related site:
http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=1
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2003 11:39 pm
Quote:


Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 12:17 am
One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."

--------
Well, now you have your answer to What Really Happened...
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 07:08 am
Oh, PDiddie, Holmgren's piece is wonderful! Sometimes one kicks oneself and thinks, Why didn't I write that? This was one of those times!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 07:40 am
PDiddie -- Conspiracy radio -- it's having a 9/11 wrap-up -- contends Building 7 is the key. No questions have been answered about it; videos need to be studied.

Edited to provide link: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7.html
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 07:47 am
And this is the guy being interviewed:

http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulQuestions.html
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 08:20 am
PDiddie -- Thanks for the Holmgren link. It's great.

Sad thoughts that we've been living through this hell for two full years. It seems like a lifetime.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 09:01 am
Oh Lord almighty ... <sighs>

Quote:
It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 04:24 pm
This Flash is chilling:

Bush Knew...and Did Nothing
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 04:59 pm
If this is accurate, it is pretty damning. therefore I doubt anything will come of it.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 05:52 pm
I have no use for Bush, and am of the opinion that his presidency is illegitimate, but that link is the hatchet job if I ever saw one. Worse it uses that tragic deaths of the WTC victims in the process. It's premies, that Bush knew what was happening works only in retrospect, with full knowledge of the events.
The first strike at the WTC was thought to be an accident, it was only when the second plane hit the towers was it clear that the strikes were intentional. There were hundreds of planes in the air that morning.The hijackers were not announcing themselves. How were the fighter pilots and their controllers to know which planes were hijacked and which were planes in duress. Suppose Bush had order fightercraft aloft to shoot them down. The same people who accuse him of fore knowledge and complicity in 9/11 would instead be accusing him of being a trigger happy cowboy and probably worse. The prudent course in this situation is to assume that a plane behaving oddly is a plane in trouble and work to save the passengers. Not to sacrifice the passengers on the possibility of evil intent.
The implied solutions offered by this web site are worse then the possibility that 9/11 could happen again as airline passengers would have to assume that they are potential targets if some general decided, for what ever reason, their plane is behaving oddly. Airline travel would become the ultimate Russian Roulette.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 08:01 pm
Chile, 9/11/73 by Peter Kornbluh
From the 9/29 Nation at www.thenation.com

Quote:
On September 14, 1970, a deputy to then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger wrote him a memo, classified SECRET/SENSITIVE, arguing against covert operations to block the duly elected Chilean socialist Salvador Allende from assuming the presidency. "What we propose is patently a violation of our own principles and policy tenets," noted Viron Vaky. "If these principles have any meaning, we normally depart from them only to meet the gravest threat to us., e.g. to our survival. Is Allende a mortal threat to the U.S.?" Vaky asked. "It is hard to argue this."
Kissinger ignored this advice. The next day he participated in a now-famous meeting where President Nixon instructed CIA Director Richard Helms to "save Chile" by secretly fomenting a coup to prevent Allende's inauguration. When those covert operations failed, Kissinger goaded Nixon into instructing the entire national security bureaucracy "on opposing Allende" and destabilizing his government. "Election of Allende as president of Chile poses one of [the] most serious challenges ever faced in this hemisphere," says a newly declassified briefing paper Kissinger gave to Nixon two days after Allende's inauguration. "Your decision as to what to do may be most historic and difficult foreign affairs decision you will have to make this year.... If all concerned do not understand that you want Allende opposed as strongly as we can, result will be steady draft toward modus vivendi approach."
Had Washington adopted a "modus vivendi approach," it is possible that Chileans, indeed citizens around the world, would not be solemnly commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the coup that brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power. In the United States, the meaning of this anniversary is, understandably, overshadowed by the shock and tragedy of our own 9/11. But Chile reminds us that the topics of debate on US foreign policy today--pre-emptive strikes, regime change, the arrogance of unilateral intervention, unchecked covert action and secrecy and dishonesty in government--are not new. From the thousands of formerly classified US documents released over the past several years, the picture that emerges strikes some haunting parallels with the news of the day.
Chile, it must be recalled, constitutes a classic example of a pre-emptive strike--a set of operations launched well before Salvador Allende set foot in office. Nixon ordered the CIA on September 15, 1970, to "make the economy scream" and to foment a military move to block Allende from being inaugurated six weeks later, in November; the Chilean leader had yet to formulate or authorize a single policy detrimental to US interests. "What happens over [the] next 6-10 months will have ramifications far beyond US-Ch[ilean] relations," Kissinger predicted in a dire warning to Nixon only forty-eight hours after Allende actually took office. "Will have effect on what happens in rest of LA and developing world; our future position in hemisphere; on larger world picture...even effect our own conception of what our role in the world is."
As in the distorted threat assessment on Iraq, this was sheer speculation--unsupported, indeed contradicted, by US intelligence. In August 1970 CIA, State and Defense Department analysts had determined that "the US has no vital national interests within Chile," and that the world "military balance of power would not be significantly altered" if Allende came to power. But an Allende victory would create "considerable political and psychological costs," including "a definite psychological advance for the Marxist idea."
Indeed, the recently declassified record reveals that what really bothered the White House was not what actions a narrow, distant country that Kissinger had once disparaged as "a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica" could take but the fact that Allende could establish a model for democratic socialist change. As Kissinger informed Nixon on November 5, 1970, the "example of [a] successful elected Marxist gov. in Chile would have [an] impact on--and even precedent value for--other parts of the world, especially Italy...similar phenomenon elsewhere would in turn significantly affect world balance and our own position in it." When the President convened his National Security Council the next day to discuss how to "hurt" Allende and "bring him down," he made this point: "Our main concern in Chile is the prospect that [Allende] can consolidate himself and the picture presented to the world will be his success."
The story of US efforts toward regime change in Chile is well known. Since Allende was democratically elected (with a margin of victory that far exceeded George Bush's edge in Florida), operations needed to be covert, and plausibly deniable. For three years the CIA engaged in a destabilization campaign in Chile--what CIA Director William Colby described in secret testimony as "a prototype or laboratory experiment" to discredit and undermine an elected government. Covert ops consisted of political action to divide Allende's coalition; massive propaganda operations aimed at disrupting the economy and discrediting the government; covert funding of opposition political parties, including those agitating for a coup; and contacts with the Chilean military.
By necessity, these operations were accompanied by rampant official deception. When Allende was brought down by a vicious military coup led by General Pinochet on September 11, 1973, Kissinger testified later before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "the intent of the United States was not to destabilize or to subvert [Allende] but to keep in being [opposition] political parties." Kissinger also testified that Washington was maintaining a "neutral" policy toward the incoming junta. In reality, within forty-eight hours of the coup, a cable went to the embassy with this secret message for Pinochet: "The USG wishes [to] make clear its desire to cooperate with the military junta and to assist in any appropriate way."
Washington had worked to destabilize a democratically elected government; now US officials rushed to help a cutthroat dictatorship consolidate its rule--with full knowledge of the atrocities it was committing. "I think we should understand our policy," Kissinger admonished his top aides as reports of mass slaughter flowed into Washington in the several weeks following the coup: "However unpleasant they act, this government is better for us than Allende was." But when the CIA covert operations were exposed a year later by Seymour Hersh in the New York Times, US officials publicly defended their actions on the grounds that their policies were intended to preserve democracy in Chile, not foster a climate for a coup. This was, submitted President Gerald Ford in one of the most famous official statements regarding US intervention against Allende, "in the best interest of the people of Chile and certainly in our best interest."
Pinochet murdered more than 3,100 Chileans, disappeared 1,100 and tortured and jailed thousands more. He closed the Chilean Congress, banned political parties, censored the press and took over the universities. Through decree, the barrel of the gun and the touch of the electrode he imposed a seventeen-year dictatorship that became synonymous with human rights abuses at home and terrorist atrocities abroad--including the 1976 car-bombing that killed Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, DC.
According to declassified memos and cables, at least some US officials acknowledged that the regime was neither in the best interests of Chile nor of the United States. Defense Intelligence Agency analysts compared Pinochet's secret police, DINA, to Hitler's Gestapo. "A documented case can be made for the proposition that the current regime in Chile is militaristic, fascistic, tyrannical and murderous," one State Department intelligence analyst reported in early 1974. Washington's support for the Pinochet regime, another State Department official wrote in a memo to the Assistant Secretary for Latin America a year later, "is one more reason why much of the youth of this country is alienated from their government and its foreign policy." "In the minds of the world at large, we are closely associated with this junta, ergo with fascists and torturers," according to Richard Bloomfield. "Chile is just the latest example for a lot of people in this country of the United States not being true to its values."
That is, perhaps, the only positive aspect of the legacy of US policy and operations in Chile. Along with concerns about Vietnam, public and Congressional anger over events in Chile generated a national debate about the corruption of American principles in the making and the exercise of US foreign policy. The Kissingerian disregard for Pinochet's abuses incited the mobilization and institutionalization of the human rights movement as we know it today; indeed, during the mid-1970s, Chile became the battleground of the first major fight between Congress and the executive branch over making human rights a criterion in US foreign policy. Similarly, revelations of CIA intervention in Chile contributed to a dramatic national re-evaluation of the propriety of such practices and to the first Congressional hearings on covert action. The public reaction to US policy in Chile reflected widespread alarm over the abuses of power and secrecy inside the executive branch and a demand that US conduct abroad return to the moral precepts of American society.
Thirty years later, public fears over government secrecy and deception are pervasive once again. To be sure, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan differ in many ways from the US intervention in Chile; and the security threat of terrorism, as opposed to the non-threat of Allende's election, is real, as we know from our own 9/11. Even so, in the wake of September 11, 2001, the lessons of September 11, 1973, demand to be remembered, as US foreign policy becomes further removed from the values, morality and real national interests of the American public. As Secretary of State Colin Powell was forced to concede when questioned about Chile on the eve of the invasion of Iraq: "It is not a part of American history that we are proud of."



And the worst of it is, there are still, undoubtedly, who will believe Allende's government posed a threat. The truth, even when it's out, only angers, does not edify, the ineducable.

P.S. I've been unable, so far, to access the Take Back the Media site (it's on overload, apparently). Will comment if and when I see it!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 08:44 pm
Finally saw the film -- very clever and apt, but needs work. I'd like to see that reworked a bit and shown on TV. It IS horrifying. Bush is horrifying. The absence of response, of explanations, is horrifying -- but in that particular, it's our do-nothing fellow citizens who horrify me.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2003 08:14 am
Quote:
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in America in connection with the September 11 attacks, was not involved in the strikes.


Url
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 04:49:26