Though it was a few years ago, i was educated and entertained by the documentary "Who Killed John O'Neill". Though by this time i was already a "9/11 Truther", this added facet of knowledge helped me understand that there were certain individuals in government who had advance knowledge of the impending WTC attacks yet their warnings were repeatedly ignored and discredited by their superiors at the agency, and were outright told to "shut up about it" by high level individuals in the CIA. In the end the CIA got their wish, as Mr. John O'Neill was permanently silenced following the 9/11 attacks as the WTC rubble buried him along with many others that he tried in vain to save.

RIP John O'Neill - YOU WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN!!!


"Who Killed 9-11 Hero John O'Neill?"

Originally published in The Daily Brew

"If you believe the media, John P. O'Neill was simply another innocent victim killed in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. But you don't need much imagination to suspect something deeper was at work.

Clearly, O'Neill was a man Osama bin Laden wanted dead. O'Neill had been a Deputy Director of the FBI, and Osama bin Laden's main pursuer in the US government. O'Neill had investigated the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, a US base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam in 1998, and the USS Cole last year.

But once the first plane hit the North Tower, Osama bin Laden wouldn't be the only man to profit from O'Neill's death. At the moment of impact, O'Neill became the man who knew too much.

Just two weeks, TWO WEEKS, prior to the attack, O'Neill had left his job with the FBI. O'Neill had quit because he believed that the Bush administration had stymied the intelligence agency's investigations on terrorism. O'Neill charged that it had done so even as it bargained with the Taliban on handing over of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid. In the ultimate irony, O'Neill had gone public with these charges at the same time that he was leaving the FBI to become the head of security at the World Trade Center.

"The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it," O'Neill reportedly told the authors of an explosive new book, Hidden Truth (Forbidden Truth in the US), by intelligence analysts Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Brisard met O'Neill several times last summer and reports that O'Neill complained bitterly that the US State Department - and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage - blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt.

"Forbidden Truth: US - Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden"

This book was banned in Switzerland at the request of Osama Bin Laden's brother.
It details State Department dealings with the Taliban prior to September 11 over a pipeline that US energy companies were trying to build through Afghanistan. This book highlights the struggle of former FBI man John O'Neill.

The Path to 9-11

Released in November 2001, Brisard and Dasquie's book was mostly ignored by the US media. But it is beginning to cause a stir. Just two days ago, the story aired for the first time on US television when CNN's Paula Zahn interviewed former Iraqi chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler.

"The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan" Butler said.

Maybe part of the reason Paula left Faux news is because she knew her right wing bosses would never let her run a story like this one. But what Paula didn't explore, or even mention, was that O'Neill was not alive to confirm or refute those charges. What CNN didn't find interesting was the fact that John P. O'Neill was in his 34th-floor office in the World Trade Tower when the first of two hijacked planes hit the building, or that he phoned a son and a friend to reassure them he was fine.

What the US media have apparently found less interesting than the death of Clinton's dog is that we have only the government's version of what happened next. O'Neill is reported to have called FBI headquarters, and then re-entered one of the towers to help others. The official story is that O'Neill was inside when the buildings collapsed.

How convenient for the Bush administration that Mr. O'Neill would not only die in the attack, but also that he would make such a call. Not only was the Bush administration's most dangerous critic forever silenced, but he also provided the administration the perfect story to explain his death.

Can you imagine how the events of the past four months would have differed had John P. O'Neill, former Deputy Director of the FBI and head of security at the World Trade Tower at the time of the attacks, had been alive to tell this story?

Can you imagine the uproar this story would be causing if Bill Clinton were still president?

As things stand, only time will tell if O'Neill's story is investigated by the US press that found Monica Lewinsky worthy of two years of our lives. Certainly, the authors who have reported it are credible. Till the late 1990s, Brisard was the director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, the giant French conglomerate that owns Universal Studios and effective control of USA Networks. He also worked for French secret services (DST), and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden. Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy. And Richard Bulter, who put the story in play on the US cable networks, is hardly an excitable conspiracy nut.

Perhaps the CIA will investigate. But I wouldn't expect much from them. After all, they were apparently unable to penetrate the same Al Qaeda network that welcomed in John Walker, a confused 20 year old kid from California, who is reported to have met bin Laden himself."

review found here;
http://www.hereinreality.com/johnoneill.html

view documentary for free on their home page;
http://www.wkjo.com/



Here's another review with background on John O'Neill. Seems like when an agent of the FBI actually does their job correctly in the interest of protecting innocent people, they themselves become targets of the behind the scenes characters who benefitted from the 9/11 attacks.


"Who was John O'Neill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill

John Patrick O'Neill (February 6, 1952 – September 11, 2001) was a top American anti-terrorism expert who worked as a special agent and eventually Assistant Deputy Director of Investigation until late 2001. In 1995, O'Neill began to intensely study the roots of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing after he assisted in the capture of Ramzi Yousef, who was the leader of that plot. He subsequently learned of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and investigated the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen. Partly due to personal friction he had within the FBI and federal government, O'Neill left to become the head of security at the World Trade Center, where he died at age 49 in the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2002, O'Neill was the subject of a Frontline documentary named "The Man Who Knew."


FBI career

O'Neill was hired on as an agent at the FBI in 1976. Over the next 15 years, O'Neill worked on issues such as white-collar crime, organized crime, and foreign counterintelligence while based at the Washington bureau. In 1991, O'Neill received an important promotion and was moved to the FBI's Chicago field office where he was assistant special agent in charge. While there, he established the Fugitive Task Force in an effort to promote interagency cooperation and enhance ties between the FBI and local law enforcement. O'Neill also supervised a task force investigating abortion clinic bombings.

Returning to the Washington headquarters in 1995, he became chief of the counterterrorism section. On his first day, he received a call from Richard A. Clarke, who had just learned that Ramzi Yousef had been located in Pakistan. O'Neill worked continuously over the next few days to gather information and coordinate the successful capture and extradition of Yousef. Intrigued by the case, O'Neill continued to study the 1993 bombing Yousef had masterminded and other information about Islamic militants. He was directly involved in the investigation into the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Frustrated by the level of cooperation from the Saudis, O'Neill purportedly vented to FBI director Louis Freeh, saying that they were "blowing smoke up your ass".

In 1996 and 1997, O'Neill continued to warn of growing threats of terrorism, saying that modern groups are not supported by governments and that there are terrorist cells operating within the United States. He stated that veterans of the insurgency by Afghan rebels against the Soviet Union's invasion had become a major threat. Also in 1997, he moved to the FBI's New York office, where he was one of the agents in charge of counterterrorism and national security.

By 1998, O'Neill had become focused on Osama bin Laden. When his friend Chris Isham, a producer for ABC News, arranged for an interview between bin Laden and correspondent John Miller, Isham and Miller used information put together by O'Neill to formulate the questions. After the interview aired, O'Neill pushed Isham hard to release an unedited version so he could carefully dissect it.

Later that year, two United States embassies were bombed in quick succession in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. O'Neill hoped to be involved in the investigation because he had gained a tremendous knowledge of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network. However, turf wars and dislike of O'Neill by some superiors in Washington first meant that the FBI's New York office was left out of the investigation, and later that O'Neill was left behind when other New York-based agents were sent to the region to pick up leads.

O'Neill's rise through the ranks at the bureau began to slow as his personal style chafed others and he made a few slip-ups by losing a bureau cell phone and Palm Pilot, improperly borrowing a car from a safe house, and losing track of a briefcase with sensitive documents for a short period. After being passed over for multiple promotions, O'Neill was pleased to be assigned as commander of the FBI's investigation into the USS Cole bombing in October 2000. However, upon arriving in Yemen, he complained about inadequate security. As his team investigated, O'Neill came into conflict with Barbara Bodine, the U.S. ambassador to Yemen. The two had widely divergent views on how to handle searches of Yemeni property and interviews with citizens and government officials, and they only grew further apart as time progressed.

After a month in Yemen, O'Neill returned to New York 20 pounds (9 kg) lighter than when he left. He hoped to return to that country to continue the investigation, but was blocked by Bodine and others. He continued to investigate the Cole bombing, but eventually decided that the FBI investigation in Yemen must be pulled out due to inadequate security.

A New York Times report of August 19, 2001 suggested that O'Neill had been the subject of an "internal investigation" at the FBI. The report suggested that O'Neill was responsible for losing a briefcase with "highly classified information" in it, containing among other things "a description of every counterespionage and counterterrorism program in New York". The briefcase was recovered shortly after its disappearance. The FBI investigation was reported to have concluded that the suitcase had been snatched by local thieves involved in a series of hotel robberies, and that none of the documents had been removed or even touched.[1]

Several people came to O'Neill's defense, suggesting that he was the subject of a "smear campaign".[2] The Times reported that O'Neill was expected to retire in late August.



NEW JOB AT WTC.

O'Neill started his new job at the World Trade Center in August 2001. (According to New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, "That Tuesday (9-11) was his first or second day on the job.") He was appointed by Kroll Associates, namely by the controversial managing director Jerome Hauer. Later that month, he talked to his friend Chris Isham about the job. Jokingly, Isham said, "Well, that will be an easy job. They're not going to bomb that place again." O'Neill replied, "Well actually they've always wanted to finish that job. I think they're going to try again."

O'Neill's remains were recovered from the World Trade Center site on September 22, 2001 and identified by Jerome Hauer.[1] Richard Clarke would later recall that only "parts of" O'Neill had been recovered.[2]

In ABC's The Path to 9/11, he was played by actor Harvey Keitel.

The unusual coincidence of O'Neill's death is often cited by supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theories as evidence that the U.S. government was involved in the planning and execution of the attacks.

There is extensive coverage of John O'Neill's anti-terrorist work at the FBI and insights into his character and his private life in the book The Looming Tower (2006) by Lawrence Wright.


C-Live, Love Oppose Evil. Novus Ordo Seclorum."

review found here;
http://libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/911/who_killed_john_oneill.htm

And they say satire is dead.
19 what?
oh yeah, the 19 savage Arab theory.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....

Wow, are you ever out of the loop. The list of false flag events at the beginning of this piece was particularly amusing:

" O'Neill had investigated the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993,... "

Then he should have known all about the FBI roll in cooking the bomb and recruiting the patsies in the 1993 WTC bombing, the high level security access to the Saudi bases and the American military grade explosive used on the USS Cole.

smell the desperation...

"big bloated balls" wrote;

"Then he should have known all about the FBI roll in cooking the bomb and recruiting the patsies in the 1993 WTC bombing, the high level security access to the Saudi bases and the American military grade explosive used on the USS Cole."

You are missing the point! Remember, not all 9/11 Truthers think alike! If you are going to be critical of my writing, at least take the time to be clear with your objections, as your point is vague at best, misleading at worst.

The entire article was not intended as satire! Nor am i "pissing on his grave" as you claim! The article was written out of respect to an individual, FBI agent John O'Neill, who tried to do the right thing by warning others of impending disaster at the WTC, though was ignored by his supervisors at the agency. If anything this indicates that there were higher status individuals at the FBI and CIA who failed to act to prevent the 9/11 tragedy, despite repeated warnings from John O'Neill!!

Nor did i claim that John O'Neill was a telepath who could read the minds of all the CIA and FBI supervisors and those higher up who kept the secret of complicity between the WTC bombers and the CIA/FBI cabals. He just knew that an attack was coming.

If John O'Neill was aware of any complicity between the FBI/CIA and the 1993 WTC bombers, that was irrelevent to his job at the time; keeping civilians safe from terrorists, regardless of whether they were "patsies" or not!!

The documentary "Who Killed John O'Neill" shows that the response of his supervisors at the agency are an indication that they purposefully failed to act to prevent the 9/11 incidents from happening. This supports the 9/11 Truth position of complicity between higher level CIA/FBI officials and the 9/11 WTC bombers.

It is bad enough that we need to argue these points repeatedly with the left gatekeepers, why would someone claiming to be a 9/11 Truther try to further confuse people?

Understanding that some trolls on this site would like to confuse people more about 9/11 Truth, your point is that because there were previous bombing attempts on the WTC in '93 that John O'Neill would automatically have known that there was complicity at the top levels?

Please read these points again since you appear to have missed them completely;

FBI agent John O'Neill repeatedly warned his superior officers at the FBI that there was going to be another attack on the WTC at some point in the future.

Mr. O'Neill's superior officers failed to heed his warnings.

Mr. O'Neill then resigned from the FBI and begun working security at the WTC.

Mr. O'Neill then lost his life in the WTC on 9/11/01 along with the people he tried to protect.

The FACT that John O'Neill's warnings were repeatedly ignored by his superior officers at the FBI is an excellent indicator that the 9/11 WTC attacks being succesful were indeed a desired result of the GW Bush regime (see PNAC "New Pearl Harbor"), and that prevention of the 9/11 attacks could have been achieved had the FBI supervisors only taken John O'Neill's warnings seriously.

John O'Neill could NOT have known about the complicity between the FBI/CIA superiors and the 9/11 WTC bombers prior to the incident, only that he felt it highly unusual for his warnings to be ignored. This feeling of unease at being ignored is what led to his resignation from the FBI.

However, as hindsight is 20/20, we now can put 2 and 2 together to reach the conclusion that since O'Neill's repeated warnings of impending attack were indeed ignored by his superior officers, that there was indeed complicity between higher level members of the FBI/CIA and the 9/11 WTC bombers.

Is that clear enough for you, "big bloated balls"??




Here's another article about John O'Neill;

"John O'Neill: A Counterterrorist Who Defied the Washington Elites"

"WASHINGTON -- Each year on September 11, many police officers and security managers remember the contributions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Counterterrorism Chief, the late John P. O’Neill. While the Clinton Administration slept during the terrorists' war against the United States, O'Neill did all he could to fight the radical Islamists who wished to place the American people in harm's way.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said, “John O’Neill was the embodiment of fidelity, bravery, and integrity. He wore his FBI badge proudly and the American people were fortunate to have someone as tireless and loyal working for them. Dedicating this facility in his honor is just one small way we can remember John O’Neill.”

He became an FBI agent in July, 1976. His first office was Baltimore where his investigative assignments included Foreign Counterintelligence, Organized Crime, and White-Collar crimes. From 1987-1991, he served in several positions within the Criminal Investigative Division and Inspection Division at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In 1991, he was the Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI’s Chicago Field Office. In 1994, Mr. O’Neill was designated Inspector in Charge of a multi-agency task force investigating domestic violence in the United States.

In January 1995 Mr. O’Neill was appointed Chief of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Section at FBI Headquarters where he was responsible for the direction and support of all of the FBI’s international and domestic counterterrorism investigations. Of particular note during this time, was the capture and extradition of bombing suspect Ramzi Yousef for his role in the first attack on the World Trade Center, the investigation of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the investigations of the bombings of U.S. facilities in Saudi Arabia. He also supervised investigations of numerous other terrorist incidents involving Americans and American interests around the world.

Mr. O’Neill served as the FBI representative on the Interagency Counterterrorism Committee of the National Security Council. He was also a member of the Terrorism Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Terrorism Subcommittee of the American Society for Industrial Security.

From January 1997 until his retirement in August 2001, he served as the Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI’s New York Office overseeing all of the national security matters including counterterrorism operations. He was well-known within the FBI and throughout the law enforcement community worldwide. He was well-regarded for his insight, work ethic, passion, and aggressiveness as a terrorism fighter.

O'Neill faced political opposition from members of the Clinton Administration, who ignored his reports and warnings. On many occasions he was denied funding for his frequent trips to the Middle East to investigate leads on terrorist groups. On several trips, he paid for his own expenses -- plane fare, hotel accommodations, etc. -- in order to wage his one man war against terrorism.

Turf wars and dislike of O'Neill by members of the Clinton Administration in Washington meant that the FBI's New York office was left out of the Middle East investigation, and later that O'Neill was left behind when other New York-based agents were sent to the region to pick up leads. O'Neill decided to continue fighting terrorism in the private sector.

After his retirement from the FBI, O’Neill took a position as Director of Security at the World Trade Center in New York City. He was on the job for just a few weeks before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center claimed his life at age 49.

The law enforcement, intelligence and security communities lost a dedicated counterterrorist on September 11, 2001. America lost a brave patriot."

find article here;
http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/102667259.html

maybe you missed my point.
The 'terrorists' are elements of the shadow government right here at home.
Not any 'Arabs'.

ya follow?

you see, after the rampant looting ( think Enron, on a universal scale ) the degenerate families who really rule this nation, needed a huge distraction and an excuse to implement a total police state to control the 'masses' when they find their fortunes and birthrights stripped away and sold off to the highest bidder left standing.
It's fairly simple who killed this man. A collapsing system of piracy and terror.

Big Brass Balls wrote;

"maybe you missed my point.
The 'terrorists' are elements of the shadow government right here at home.
Not any 'Arabs'."

No, i disagree with your point that there were no "Arabs" involved in the 9/11 attacks. The 19 initial 9/11 hijackers were clearly Saudi Arabian and this qualifies them as "Arabs." In addition, al Queda is organized by a prominent Saudi Arabian named Osama Bin Laden (he also qualifies as an "Arab".).

These Saudi Arabians mentioned above are also engaged in acts that would be defined as "terrorism", regardless of who was giving orders from behind the CIA curtain. So to claim that there are "no Arab terrorists." is a fallacy by omission.

It just so happens that these above mentioned Saudi Arabian terrorists are fullfilling a role in a scripted play written by higher status unknown individuals in the CIA and other U.S. foreign intelligence agenices (NSA).

Stated more correctly;

Saudi Arabian and other Arab terrorists in groups such as al Queda are fullfilling a role as needed enemies for an even larger terrorist organization of the CIA and U.S. military.

Without the constant threat of terrorism from Saudi and other Arab extremists in the group known as al Queda, the continued demands for increased U.S. military and foreign intelligence funding would not be as valid a request, and U.S. citizens would be more likely to protest the heavy taxpayer expenditures on military and foreign intel operations.

The U.S. military-industrial complex is highly dependent on an ongoing external threat to justify their bloated budget. Following the Cold War threat of Soviet communism, another threat needed to come to the forefront to justify our continued role as the "global policing" entity that U.S. military and intel ops have become. This newest threat took the form of extremist Muslims terrorists such as al Queda, many of whom have Saudi Arabian backgrounds.

(NOTE - Very few if any al Queda recruits were from Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion, though following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, this changed rapidly. Then al Queda in Iraq became a much greater threat, thus proving the point that our ongoing military occupation in Iraq helped significantly in expanding al Queda's cultural base of recruits.)

There are options to fight al Queda and other terrorist groups by attrition, in other words remove the fuel that fires their anger; U.S. military occupations and bases in Muslims lands!!

Once again what may be the last two honest politicians in DC (or at least the owners of the four biggest balls in DC!) are trying to get to the source of the problems caused by our overly aggressive foreign policy decisons, the root cause of terrorism;




"In a last-ditch effort to prevent the U.S. government’s wars from spreading, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich joined forces to push for a comprehensive withdrawal of U.S. troops from Pakistan by year’s end. The House voted 372 to 38 against the resolution, but the debate served as yet another example of growing antiwar sentiment in Congress."

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-07-08/ron-paul-and-dennis-kucinich-join-forces-to-push-for-u-s-withdrawal-from-pakistan/

"The 19 initial 9/11 hijackers were clearly Saudi Arabian"
how does anyone know that?
The obvious salting of evidence that even the FBI says is not enough to do diddly with?
The flight manifests of the high-jacked airlines had no Arabic names on them in the 1st place.
Like I said NOTHING about this myth* holds up under scrutiny.

*19 savage Arab theory

Sorry, here's the correct address;

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-07-08/ron-paul-and-dennis-kucinich-join-forces-to-push-for-u-s-withdrawal-from-pakistan/comment-page-4/#comments

when ever I see or hear the term 'Al Quieda' I have to laugh...
like the crappy serial, NCIS, this criminal government sure needs its manufactured enemies to legitimize its terrorist existence...
this was domestic terrorism by rogue elements inside our shadow ruling structure to give the excuse to clamp down martial law when the people find out the extent of the looting to our treasury by these parasites on Wall Street.

Not having much luck with the website address. Try this instead.


From Ron Paul;

"Likewise, we are told that we have to "win" in Afghanistan so that al-Qaeda cannot use Afghan territory to plan further attacks against the US. We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, largely planned in the United States (and Germany) by terrorists who were in our country legally. According to the logic of those who endorse military action against Afghanistan because al-Qaeda was physically present, one could argue in favor of US airstrikes against several US states and Germany! It makes no sense. The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to remain in Afghanistan because both had been engaged, with US assistance, in the insurgency against the Soviet occupation.

Nevertheless, the president's National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, USMC (Ret.), said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? I fear that there will be increasing pressure for the US to invade Pakistan, to where many Taliban and al-Qaeda have escaped. Already CIA drone attacks on Pakistan have destabilized that country and have killed scores of innocents, producing strong anti-American feelings and calls for revenge. I do not see how that contributes to our national security."

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=435



BTW - There are several 9/11 Truther theories when it comes to the 19 Saudi hijackers. Again, 9/11 Truthers don't all agree that these 19 people simply "did not exist" as some above comments claim.

Most 9/11 Truthers believe in prior U.S. government knowledge of impending 9/11 attacks on WTC. Most also believe that higher status individuals in U.S. domestic and foreign intelligence (all the way up to PNAC) halted actions that could have prevented these attacks from achieving success. The desired outcome was "A New Pearl Harbor" (PNAC quoted term) that would have enabled the GW bush and following U.S. administrations to bring up 9/11 attacks anytime they wanted to justify U.S. military expeditions in oil rich Muslims lands.

Many (though not all) 9/11 Truthers also believe that some form of explosives were planted inside WTC structures prior to 9/11 plane impacts, and following the impacts said internal explosives were detonated by remote from nearby WTC, thus resulting in collapse of the entire structural entity that would have been inprobable from rapidly burning jet fuel and debris in upper floors.

However, most 9/11 Truthers do NOT believe in the "remote control flown plane" theory or the "UFO involvement" theory or the "airplane hologram" theory, and most feel that these bizarre fringe theories are put out there as disinformation to discredit the more reasonable 9/11 Truth theories.

So i would add the "disappearing 19 Saudi hijackers" theory to this disinfo list, or at least to one of the 9/11 Truth "highly unlikely" theories that i personally do not believe in. Either misinfo or disinfo?



Background on 9/11 Truth and disinformation;

"The 9/11 truth movement is a prime target for disinformation, infiltration, and other forms of sabotage by forces who do not want the public asking difficult questions about 9/11. Believers of the official story may see the discussion of disinformation as further evidence of “paranoia,” but objective observers and researchers recognize the clear evidence of disinformation. Disinformation and counterintelligence sabotage have long been used by government authorities in subverting progressive groups and causes (see Cointelpro).

Disinformation requires intentionality while misinformation does not. In the 9/11 truth movement, you will come across both—evidence, materials, researchers, and groups that either consciously or unconsciously promote false or misleading information. Much incorrect information within the 9/11 truth community likely began as disinformation but has been perpetuated as unintentional misinformation.

1.The Straw Man Argument/Sensationalism - by promoting speculative, sensational, and false evidence, opponents can setup easily debunkable or dismissable points that can be used to lend credence to their position. The opposition prefers dealing with topics that can be easily countered, or that simply make 9/11 skeptics look like kooks. Controlled demolition and no plane at the Pentagon are some of the most incredible theories in the movement. Whether or not there is prevalent evidence to support these theories almost doesn’t matter if the public is likely to be incredulous and quickly dismiss them. At TruthMove, we find controlled demolition to be a compelling hypothesis but not theories of a missile or military plane at the Pentagon. Sensational issues such as these also have a way of overshadowing the drier, more documentary evidence. If, for example, controlled demolition captures your imagination, you may not be so interested in the hundreds of other details that together make a watertight case for government complicity.

2.Muddying the Waters - making it harder to discern the real evidence/researchers/websites from the fake ones. This approach both frustrates efforts at understanding the subject and makes the project less focused and more frustrating to be a part of. For example, when a newcomer visits the Scholars for 9/11 Truth site, and sees that there are two exclusive, competing groups (that are each essentially calling the other “disinfo”), they might become frustrated or dismissive with the whole movement. While one may be interested in researching and “getting to the bottom of 9/11,” distinguishing between honest information and disinformation, between trustworthy and suspect sources becomes another time-consuming, distracting layer of investigation.

3.Bad Jacketing/Death by Association/Smear Campaign - by including the target idea/individual/movement along with another topic or personality that is disliked or discredited (UFOs, anti-semitism, nazis, etc.), the original subject can be smeared and dismissed. These smear campaigns can be extremely effective, as most people are very concerned with the image of a group or subject that they might get involved with. While not entirely due to disinformation, you can see this dynamic at work in the generalized image of “conspiracy theories.” For some reason, many diverse topics—UFOs, 9/11, JFK, Illuminati, Satanism, New World Order, Shapeshifting Aliens—are commonly conflated with each other in people’s minds.

4.Paranoia/Divide and Conquer - one of the most effective ways to destroy a group is to sow distrust among members. COINTELPRO is known to have supplied false information in order create suspicion between authentic progressive activists. Seemingly paradoxically, disinformation agents may actually promote discussion of disinformation/infiltration in order to increase paranoia. Such efforts may be targeted at creating suspicion around real and effective evidence/materials/activists.


Examples of Suspected Disinformation/Infiltration

Several high-profile “researchers” and supposed 9/11 skeptics have come out promoting theories that no planes actually hit the WTC towers, instead holograms and/or “TV fakery” was supposedly used to simulate the planes. Many of these same individuals also promote theories about “mini-nukes” or “space-beam” weapons being used to demolish the towers. 5 6 (Also, see this TM forum post, I HEARD AND SAW THE FIRST PLANE)"

entire article found here;
http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/

So here is a detailed article explaining why the "no hijacker names on passenger lists" is misinfo, and when repeated after having knowledge of error, becomes intentional disinfo;

The crucial difference is between unreleased passenger lists and released victim lists. Hijackers were intentionally NOT included on victim lists. As passenger lists remain withheld for public review, this becomes a confusing source of misinformation.

August 28, 2008 at 02:36 pm


9/11 Misinformation: Flight “Passenger Lists” Show “No Hijacker Names”

By Arabesque

"The assertion that 9/11 passengers lists “contained no Arab names” is frequently seen in the 9/11 truth movement.[1] For example, this article by Enver Masud is headlined, “Why are there no Arab names on the passenger list for the planes used in the September 11, 2001 attack…?”[2] The 9/11 website 9/11 Hard Facts claims, “[On] officially released passenger lists provided by the airlines to the media, no Arab names appear on any of the four passenger lists.”[3] In David Ray Griffin’s 9/11: The Myth and the Reality, he repeats the claim that, “[Their] names should be on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released contain neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any other Arab names.”[4] As well, Michael C. Ruppert, citing Gary North wrote, “Another easy and non-debatable hole is with the passenger lists and the hijackers. Gary North, Ph.D. - a history professor… relied on lists published by CNN… Official reports state that there were only 19 hijackers. Second, none of listed passenger names are Arabic, Muslim… The government needs to provide an explanation for this glaring discrepancy.”[5]

In fact, the U.S. Government withheld the actual passenger lists for years. An earlier version of Jim Hoffman’s page on the passenger lists reported correctly that there was previously “no public evidence… Researchers who have attempted to obtain this information from the airlines have been rebuffed.”[6] However, many 9/11 researchers mistakenly cited “victim lists”—not passenger lists. From the 911 research website, Jim Hoffman explains:

“According to the official story, teams of four and five Islamic hijackers took over Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. Victims lists for the four planes published by CNN and elsewhere are free of Arab names… This fact has been highlighted as suspicious by some researchers describing the lists as passenger manifests. However, these lists are not passenger manifests, but lists of victims… CNN describes its criteria for including persons in its memorial in a pop-up window labelled ‘About this site’… ‘(Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included)…’ In July of 2006 a large collection of documents was published on a website containing prosecution and defense exhibits for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui… The faxes, reproduced below, include the names of the alleged hijackers.”[7]

Referring to “victim lists” as if they were “passenger lists” would be significantly misleading. The CNN website frequently cited reveals that the alleged hijackers were intentionally not included.

What about the security videos? Airport officials and the U.S. Government are either refusing to release them or claiming that they do not exist. Unbelievably, the Boston Herald reported a few weeks after 9/11 that, “Logan International Airport is missing… surveillance cameras… Logan officials acknowledged the ‘deficiency’…”[8] This is significant because two of the flights originated from Logan airport on 9/11. As Jim Hoffman confirms, “The public has not been treated to any video showing any of the alleged hijackers at Boston Logan Airport, the origin of Flights 11 and 175, or Newark Airport, the origin of Flight 93.”[9] Citing Michael Taylor, president of American International Security Corp, Jim Hoffman reports that “Newark airport does have video cameras in its departure lounges. So does Dulles International Airport… the FBI has refused to release any video from these airports.”[10] In 2004, USA Today released images from a “surveillance video from Washington Dulles International Airport the morning of Sept. 11, 2001” which showed “four of the five hijackers being pulled aside to undergo additional scrutiny after setting off metal detectors.”[11] The video was only obtained after a lawsuit from the “Motley Rice law firm… representing some survivors' families who are suing the airlines and security industry over their actions in the Sept. 11 attacks.”[12] Unusually, the video does not have a time stamp on it. The only other video evidence does not come from airports involved in the 9/11 attack. On their way to Logan International Airport in Boston, the Boston Globe reported images showing “Mohamed Atta and… Abdulaziz Alomari, passing through a security checkpoint at the Portland, Maine, airport at 5:45 a.m. on Sept. 11.”[13]

Elias Davidsson claims that, “Airline personnel traditionally see off passengers… one would have expected to see, hear and read international media interview airline employees under headlines such as ‘I was the last to see the passengers alive’. Yet no such interview is known to have taken place. The 9/11 Commission does not even mention the existence of any deposition or testimony by airline personnel that witnessed the boarding of the aircraft. And even the identities of these employees remains secret: As a response to this author’s request to interview American Airlines employees who saw off passengers of flight AA77, the airline responded that their identities cannot be revealed for privacy reasons.”[14]

By refusing to release evidence, the U.S. Government is actually encouraging speculation and misinformation. As Hoffman also explains, there are other problems with the official story in relation to the hijackers including, “the existence of a handful of reports in mainstream newspapers of those suspects proclaiming their innocence after the attack… Six of the 19 suicide hijackers identified by the FBI shortly after the attack by name, photograph, and other personal details reported themselves alive… [and] the reported lack of piloting skills of the suspects.”[15]

However, as Ruppert correctly points out, “Every journalist makes mistakes from time to time. The New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, all of them publish hundreds of corrections every year. It’s the journalist who does not acknowledge and correct errors who cannot be trusted.”[16] Ruppert does not endorse the claim that “no hijacker names appear on the passenger lists” in his book Crossing the Rubicon.[17] Promoting mistakes even after they have been pointed would be an example of disinformation.[18]

By withholding evidence pertaining to the 9/11 attacks like the airliner passenger lists, videos of passengers boarding the planes on 9/11, and videos of the Pentagon attack, the U.S. Government is actually encouraging misinformation. For years, there was no verifiable evidence that the alleged hijackers were on the passenger manifests because the U.S. Government refused to release these documents. By not releasing these documents, the U.S. Government actually encouraged speculation that the hijackers names did not show up on the passenger lists. However, there is a difference between asserting “evidence is being withheld” and “there is no evidence”—only the first claim can be verified. Misinformation benefits the U.S. Government and its cover-up of the 9/11 crimes. As Thomas Pynchon explains, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”[19]



read this article here;
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/9-11-misinformation-flight-passenger-lists-show-no-hijacker-names

I don't know about you but the passenger lists were available on 18 Sep '01
redacted or altered lists are obvious pat6ches.
Like the way Fox deleted the news segments to the only ones arrested on 9-11 who were Israeli.