PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on 9/11 - He’s courageous and obviously right.




Ronin Truth
09-05-2014, 04:37 AM
Ron Paul on 9/11: “I Believe That If We Ever Get The Full Truth, We’ll Find Out That Our Government Had It In The Records Exactly What The Plans Were, Or At Least Close To It” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/no_author/ron-paul-on-911/)

Washington's Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/)

September 5, 2014


Background: Overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2008/04/911-was-foreseeable.html). Indeed, Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/al-qaeda-flying-planes-into-the-world-trade-center-and-pentagon-was-foreseeable.html). And see this (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/06/senior-nsa-manager-demolishes-intelligence-agencies-excuse-911.html).

No wonder the movement to declassify 9/11 information is gaining momentum (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/movement-declassify-911-materials-gathers-momentum.html).
Reprinted from Washington’s Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/ron-paul-911-believe-ever-get-full-truth-well-find-government-records-exactly-plans-least-close.html).


Copyright © 2014 Washington's Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/)




http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/no_author/ron-paul-on-911/

Finally. Way to go, Ron! One more very important (at least to me) vote for LIHOP! Stay tuned!

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 06:12 AM
This is not going to please the anti-conspiracy folks on this board.

Ronin Truth
09-05-2014, 06:34 AM
This is not going to please the anti-conspiracy folks on this board. Yeah, 13 years is just pretty much way past time for them to wake up and smell the OBVIOUS conspiracy. It's been there all along.

FloralScent
09-05-2014, 06:46 AM
This is not going to please the anti-conspiracy folks Cass Sunstein brigade on this board.

I know....another 'conspiracy theory'.

Christian Liberty
09-05-2014, 06:48 AM
So did Ron change his mind, or did he just lie?

ClydeCoulter
09-05-2014, 06:52 AM
So did Ron change his mind, or did he just lie?

About what? Ron has always stated that a new investigation was not unwarranted. But, he has refused to go along with the "Inside Job" folks to keep from being labeled even worse than what he was being labeled. Even in this interview he states that the government having the information doesn't mean that they sat down and plotted it out.

edit: And I think it is best if he doesn't get on the "Inside Job" track, and just stick with known facts and a push to release relevant information as well as a new investigation.

Ronin Truth
09-05-2014, 07:00 AM
So did Ron change his mind, or did he just lie? He called for a new complete 9/11 investigation for a long time. I'd say he "politicked", because he was in office in the House. A MAJOR reason that I'm really glad he finally left that cess pool.

Cap
09-05-2014, 07:10 AM
I read somewhere that Ron said he never took the time (or had the time?) to study the issue, so having said that, I hope that Ron takes a long hard look at all the available information and makes an informed opinion.

Deborah K
09-05-2014, 10:01 AM
I'm sure he's talking about Able Danger. I've always believed this version as well. http://historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=abledanger

In a nutshell: Able Danger was a unit charged with collecting data on terrorist suspects, namely OBL and his gang, starting in 1998. As they got closer to suspecting a terrorist act in the U.S., federal agents confiscated their info, and the CIA and FBI were not permitted to share info with each other. Several whistleblowers from Able Danger came forward to state that their investigation was quelled.

Notice how not many people know about this? It's because the media is complicit in the cover-up. Our glorious government knew we were going to be attacked and let it happen.

helmuth_hubener
09-05-2014, 10:28 AM
So did Ron change his mind, or did he just lie?

Come on. :rolleyes:

Show me the contradiction, FreedomFanatic. Show me two quotes side by side that show a contradiction, or a "lie," or even a "change of mind."

Ronin Truth
09-05-2014, 10:40 AM
I'm sure he's talking about Able Danger. I've always believed this version as well. http://historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=abledanger

In a nutshell: Able Danger was a unit charged with collecting data on terrorist suspects, namely OBL and his gang, starting in 1998. As they got closer to suspecting a terrorist act in the U.S., federal agents confiscated their info, and the CIA and FBI were not permitted to share info with each other. Several whistleblowers from Able Danger came forward to state that their investigation was quelled.

Notice how not many people know about this? It's because the media is complicit in the cover-up. Our glorious government knew we were going to be attacked and let it happen.
Thank you. I believe that you are largely correct. Personally, I come down heavier on MIHOP "inside job" side of the issue. Who knows.....yet?

Deborah K
09-05-2014, 10:54 AM
Thank you. I believe that you are largely correct. Personally, I come down heavier on MIHOP "inside job" side of the issue. Who knows.....yet?

Here's a good clip on it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbjLPDNb27s


"They" went after Congressman Weldon for this too. Ruined him. And then quietly swept this under the rug.

Check out what he says at around 6:50

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 10:56 AM
So did Ron change his mind, or did he just lie?


About what? Ron has always stated that a new investigation was not unwarranted. But, he has refused to go along with the "Inside Job" folks to keep from being labeled even worse than what he was being labeled. Even in this interview he states that the government having the information doesn't mean that they sat down and plotted it out.

edit: And I think it is best if he doesn't get on the "Inside Job" track, and just stick with known facts and a push to release relevant information as well as a new investigation.


Come on. :rolleyes:

Show me the contradiction, FreedomFanatic. Show me two quotes side by side that show a contradiction, or a "lie," or even a "change of mind."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect FreedomFanatic is being a little sarcastic here. So many times we were told that Ron's campaign was destroyed by people who believe what Ron basically said in the OP headline/quote, and that those who held those beliefs were attaching them to Ron when they didn't belong there.

Deborah K
09-05-2014, 10:56 AM
moved

William Tell
09-05-2014, 10:58 AM
He always wanted to investigate the Saudis.

Deborah K
09-05-2014, 10:59 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect FreedomFanatic is being a little sarcastic here. So many times we were told that Ron's campaign was destroyed by people who believe what Ron basically said in the OP headline/quote, and that those who held those beliefs were attaching them to Ron when they didn't belong there.

Except that it remains to be seen if he is claiming an "inside job", or something along the lines of Able Danger. It will be interesting to see just what he means.

Edit: Btw, when I refer to "inside job", I'm referring to the accusations of bombs being planted in the WTC, etc.

Ronin Truth
09-05-2014, 11:27 AM
Except that it remains to be seen if he is claiming an "inside job", or something along the lines of Able Danger. It will be interesting to see just what he means.

Edit: Btw, when I refer to "inside job", I'm referring to the accusations of bombs being planted in the WTC, etc.

I'm thinking more like "a defense build up, requiring a new Pearl Harbor", which for me was also an "inside job".

jmdrake
09-08-2014, 11:09 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/no_author/ron-paul-on-911/

Finally. Way to go, Ron! One more very important (at least to me) vote for LIHOP! Stay tuned!

+rep! I've been waiting for this.

jmdrake
09-08-2014, 11:10 AM
So did Ron change his mind, or did he just lie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cENpjWNIt-Y

jmdrake
09-08-2014, 11:33 AM
Come on. :rolleyes:

Show me the contradiction, FreedomFanatic. Show me two quotes side by side that show a contradiction, or a "lie," or even a "change of mind."

He may not have lied, but some anti-conspiracy types have for years gone along with Fox putting words in his mouth. This is what I'm talking about. This dishonest video has been posted here more times than I can imagine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CICV87JseGo

Fox news asshat: "Many of your supporters call themselves 9/11 truthers. They believe that the government was complicit in 9/11 or in some way covered it up. Are you prepared tonight to embrace that rhetoric or ask your supporters to abandon it or divorce themselves from your candidacy?"

Ron Paul: "I can't tell people what to do, but I've abandoned it. I don't endorse anything they say. But I would like to take the opportunity to address what we've been debating here for the past 20 minutes."

Fox news asshat: "Sir would you ask them to cease that rhetoric on your behalf?"

Ron Paul: "Well it doesn't do me any good so if they care about me they should. But the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what I say. So I don't believe that and I don't endorse it. But can I please continue with the debate?"

After that, Ron goes on to talk about economics and big government, which was apparently the subject matter before asshat decided to use the debate as an evil opportunity to drive a wedge between Ron Paul and his own supporters.

Now, analysis. The asshat never talked about WTC 7 or controlled demolition or even if Ron or any of his supporters believed the government was involved in 9/11. Whenever this subject is brought up, some anticonspiracy theorist says "But he doesn't believe exactly as you do Drake." So freaking what?! That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that Ron was bullied by asshat into distancing himself from a completely logical and reasonable position in that the government knew about the attacks beforehand or at the very least engaged in a coverup in the aftermath. Members of the 9/11 Commission have admitted that there has been a government cover up.

Now am I mad at Ron for not "standing firm" on this? Nope. For one thing it is at least possible that during the campaign Ron Paul really did "abandon" those beliefs, and after he got out of public office altogether he decided to revisit them. (Note that Ron Paul didn't say "I never held those beliefs." For another...folks this is freaking politics! Ron Paul is more honest than the overwhelming majority of politicians. But he's not perfect. It's time as a movement that we grow up, grow a pair, and realize this. And it's also time that we as a movement we quit crucifying each other for different beliefs just because scum outside this movement want to attack the movement because of the beliefs some people have. How many Obama supporters agree with Jeremiah Wright that 9/11 was America's "chickens coming home to roost"? How many Bush supporters agreed with Pat Robertson that 9/11 was due to "America's tolerance for homosexuality"? I don't recall Bush, Obama or any other candidate being raked over the coals for the views of their prominent supporters the way Ron Paul got raked over the coals for some guy in a shark suit. And rather than attacking the media for being the biased jerks (some) of them are, we attack each other. It's time for that to stop.

jmdrake
09-08-2014, 11:41 AM
Except that it remains to be seen if he is claiming an "inside job", or something along the lines of Able Danger. It will be interesting to see just what he means.

Edit: Btw, when I refer to "inside job", I'm referring to the accusations of bombs being planted in the WTC, etc.

The media driven hatred for 9/11 truthers was not over the nuances of different theories about how it happened but rather vitriol at the idea that the government either killed 3,000 of its own citizens or allowed them to be killed for some nefarious purpose. The question was, and is "Was there actionable intelligence? And if there was, why were the appropriate actions not taken?" Remember Cynthia McKinney? As far as I know she was the first public official to question 9/11. All she said was "What did the president know and when did he know it?" and for that she was immediately attacked by the media which claimed she suggested allowed 9/11 to happen.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16172/the_screwing_of_cynthia_mckinney

So just the mere suggestion that someone might think the government allowed 9/11 to happen draws as much wrath as 1 millions supporters wearing "I support candidate X and I believe the government carried out 9/11" t-shirts.

jmdrake
09-08-2014, 11:45 AM
I'm sure he's talking about Able Danger. I've always believed this version as well. http://historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=abledanger

In a nutshell: Able Danger was a unit charged with collecting data on terrorist suspects, namely OBL and his gang, starting in 1998. As they got closer to suspecting a terrorist act in the U.S., federal agents confiscated their info, and the CIA and FBI were not permitted to share info with each other. Several whistleblowers from Able Danger came forward to state that their investigation was quelled.

Notice how not many people know about this? It's because the media is complicit in the cover-up. Our glorious government knew we were going to be attacked and let it happen.

Not only that, but Republican Congressman Kurt Weldon, who was leading the charge on this, was drummed out of office by his own party. Oh, and at first Able Danger was getting traction. Michelle Malkin even covered the story. Then the word got out that it not only made Clinton look bad, it made Bush look bad as well.

Edit: That said, while I believe the Able Danger report, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Able Danger, for example, doesn't explain the whole "Visa Express" program where suspicious Saudi nationals where shepherded by the CIA through immigration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ut2vKqnCpE

With Michael Springman's very credible testimony we move from LIHOP squarely into MIHOP land without having to deal with controlled demolition, no plane theories, etc.

Christian Liberty
09-08-2014, 11:53 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect FreedomFanatic is being a little sarcastic here. So many times we were told that Ron's campaign was destroyed by people who believe what Ron basically said in the OP headline/quote, and that those who held those beliefs were attaching them to Ron when they didn't belong there.

Actually, I do remember Ron basically implying that 9/11 truth was nuts. I suspect based on the man's character that he did change his mind, but its possible that he was pretending to not want to be associated with 9/11 truth out of political convenience.

jmdrake
09-08-2014, 12:07 PM
Actually, I do remember Ron basically implying that 9/11 truth was nuts. I suspect based on the man's character that he did change his mind, but its possible that he was pretending to not want to be associated with 9/11 truth out of political convenience.

+rep I totally agree. I would go a step further and say this was beyond association. The Fox asshat wasn't going to let Ron talk about anything else until he disavowed 9/11 truth in all it's forms. (MIHOP, LIHOP, cover up). Had Ron said "I Believe That If We Ever Get The Full Truth, We’ll Find Out That Our Government Had It In The Records Exactly What The Plans Were, Or At Least Close To It”" then he never would have been able to talk about anything but 9/11 or the rest of the campaign.

Deborah K
09-08-2014, 12:44 PM
Not only that, but Republican Congressman Kurt Weldon, who was leading the charge on this, was drummed out of office by his own party. Oh, and at first Able Danger was getting traction. Michelle Malkin even covered the story. Then the word got out that it not only made Clinton look bad, it made Bush look bad as well.

Edit: That said, while I believe the Able Danger report, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Able Danger, for example, doesn't explain the whole "Visa Express" program where suspicious Saudi nationals where shepherded by the CIA through immigration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ut2vKqnCpE

With Michael Springman's very credible testimony we move from LIHOP squarely into MIHOP land without having to deal with controlled demolition, no plane theories, etc.

It kind of does, if you consider that tptb wouldn't let the FBI and the CIA share information. THAT is probably why. It also explains why they destroyed all of Able Danger's findings - they were getting too close to finding out about the CIA's dirty work? It also might help explain why Michael Scheuer was always pissed off and getting fired and moved around....and why he left the CIA in disgust after the 911 Commission report came out, and hence his anonymous best-seller: Imperial Hubris.

hmm.......

jmdrake
09-08-2014, 12:53 PM
It kind of does, if you consider that tptb wouldn't let the FBI and the CIA share information. THAT is probably why. It also explains why they destroyed all of Able Danger's findings - they were getting too close to finding out about the CIA's dirty work? It also might help explain why Michael Scheuer was always pissed off and getting fired and moved around....and why he left the CIA in disgust after the 911 Commission report came out, and hence his anonymous best-seller: Imperial Hubris.

hmm.......

Sure. "Cover up of incompetence". That's still a "coverup" which Cameron got Ron Paul to deny. That said, what do you think of the Michael Springman video? We know that some of the hijackers came through that very consulate that Springman said the CIA was forcing him to let suspicious Saudis through. And what to you feel about the more recent admissions by the Obama administration that the underwear bomber was purposefully allowed to fly? That isn't a case of information not being "shared". And what about the whole ISIS thing? At some point the "mere incompetence" theory doesn't add up.

Also, for the record, while Ron Paul has not endorsed controlled demolition, he has acknowledged that what happened to WTC 7 as "suspicious."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ADYLUOk1I

Really, if I was totally against any association with 9/11 there's no way I would have said ^that.

Edit: I think Michael Shuerer brings some good information to the table, but I believe his knowledge is limited by compartmentalization. For example he it's highly possible that he was unaware of what was happening in Jeddah with the Visa Express program.

Deborah K
09-08-2014, 01:08 PM
Sure. "Cover up of incompetence". That's still a "coverup" which Cameron got Ron Paul to deny. That said, what do you think of the Michael Springman video? We know that some of the hijackers came through that very consulate that Springman said the CIA was forcing him to let suspicious Saudis through. And what to you feel about the more recent admissions by the Obama administration that the underwear bomber was purposefully allowed to fly? That isn't a case of information not being "shared". And what about the whole ISIS thing? At some point the "mere incompetence" theory doesn't add up.

Also, for the record, while Ron Paul has not endorsed controlled demolition, he has acknowledged that what happened to WTC 7 as "suspicious."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ADYLUOk1I

Really, if I was totally against any association with 9/11 there's no way I would have said ^that.

Edit: I think Michael Shuerer brings some good information to the table, but I believe his knowledge is limited by compartmentalization. For example he it's highly possible that he was unaware of what was happening in Jeddah with the Visa Express program.

I couldn't say what Mike knew or knows, it's a topic we haven't really discussed in depth. And his latest bestseller (now 3 yrs old): 'Osama bin Laden', makes no mention of Able Danger. What I do know, is that he had bin Laden in his crosshairs more than once, and Clinton kept saying "NO!" WHY? His excuses were lame.

And anyone who thinks bin Laden wasn't complicit in the attack just isn't putting 2 and 2 together.

I'll check out the clip next break.

jmdrake
09-08-2014, 02:49 PM
I couldn't say what Mike knew or knows, it's a topic we haven't really discussed in depth. And his latest bestseller (now 3 yrs old): 'Osama bin Laden', makes no mention of Able Danger. What I do know, is that he had bin Laden in his crosshairs more than once, and Clinton kept saying "NO!" WHY? His excuses were lame.

And anyone who thinks bin Laden wasn't complicit in the attack just isn't putting 2 and 2 together.

I'll check out the clip next break.

I don't know of anyone who rules out Osama Bin Laden at least being complicit in the attacks. The question is was he and his organization have sole and total control of the operation.

Deborah K
09-08-2014, 03:06 PM
I don't know of anyone who rules out Osama Bin Laden at least being complicit in the attacks. The question is was he and his organization have sole and total control of the operation.

Anyone who has spent even a minimal amount of time looking into the attacks would have a difficult time believing that the gov't wasn't involved.

I watched that clip, John. Springman's account seems very credible.

69360
09-08-2014, 03:54 PM
This is not going to please the anti-conspiracy folks on this board.

Wrong, it's no big deal and nothing new. He is eluding to the fact that it was an intelligence failure, not a conspiracy.

Ronnyman
09-09-2014, 07:51 AM
Wrong, it's no big deal and nothing new. He is eluding to the fact that it was an intelligence failure, not a conspiracy.

LOL....conspiracy? Is this the place to hang with the conspiracy freaks?

brushfire
09-09-2014, 07:56 AM
Ah yes, to some its the child who can do no wrong. Thankfully they have a shroud to protect themselves, at least long enough to get away with whatever they're doing. Terrorists - the fascist's best friend.

https://adoptionfind.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/problem-child_l2.jpg?w=300&h=225

Ronnyman
09-09-2014, 08:01 AM
:D

Cap
09-09-2014, 08:37 AM
I'm sure that the neocon wing will have a full court press to keep a lid on the 28 pages. Because, if the 28 pages get released, there goes Jeb Bush's hopes in 16

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-06-2014, 09:37 AM
LOL....conspiracy? Is this the place to hang with the conspiracy freaks?


Oh, look, it's another troll I get to neg rep. If you check "Ronnyman's" posts, then it looks like he is just seeking posts where he can troll. Like these:




Knowing mitrosky....he probably gave the cops a load of crap too because he hates all Feds and cops.


(If you weren't so lazy, Holmes, then you would actually know some people here for more effective trolling. As it stands--you suck at--well, everything so far.)


people just need to deal with it...theres a reason the laws are in place.....for our safety.



Neg rep for piss poor trolling. Study up and come back when you're more interesting.

Oh, and enjoy your pink bars soon!

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-06-2014, 09:38 AM
:D



;)

S.Shorland
10-06-2014, 10:21 AM
From memory,the thing that irked Ron was that no blame was placed: As a former airforce officer,the fact that many in the chain were promoted rather than court martialled seemed odd to him.

dannno
10-06-2014, 10:35 AM
Thank you. I believe that you are largely correct. Personally, I come down heavier on MIHOP "inside job" side of the issue. Who knows.....yet?

Some people LIHOP and some MIHOP. It was a combination of both.

Ronin Truth
10-06-2014, 10:52 AM
Cui bono?

jjdoyle
10-16-2014, 10:04 PM
There's this video from last year, where he continues on the government commissions are designed to deceive to the people idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayRGCncDCfs

Which, I agree with of course. Knowing my government, and how they will propagandize ANYTHING for political purposes, and the media reads the teleprompters like the good puppets they are, I have no doubt the 9/11 Commission (Fraud) Report committee withheld information and didn't put in all information. We know for a fact they withheld information from the report, just with the 28 classified pages, and I can only imagine what wasn't in the report that was buried, destroyed, and erased.

JohnM
11-10-2014, 02:07 PM
For the sake of completeness, here is what Ron Paul said when asked to clarify his position:


"I have never changed my position on 9/11, and I do not accuse the government of planning or knowing about 9/11 beforehand. I think what you will find is that government commissions tend to protect government incompetence, and that perhaps the government should have been able to put the intelligence pieces together prior to the attack. I have always advocated for transparency in government, which is why I believe the full 9/11 Commission Report should be declassified so the American people can read it for themselves. "

Source:http://rare.us/story/ron-paul-im-not-a-911-truther/

Anti Federalist
11-10-2014, 09:32 PM
Ron Paul on 9/11: “I Believe That If We Ever Get The Full Truth, We’ll Find Out That Our Government Had It In The Records Exactly What The Plans Were, Or At Least Close To It”

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/i_told_you_so_stephen_colbert.gif

heavenlyboy34
11-10-2014, 11:20 PM
Cui bono?

The million dollar question that the usual suspects don't want answered.

JohnM
11-11-2014, 02:57 AM
So, Ron Paul said
“I Believe That If We Ever Get The Full Truth, We’ll Find Out That Our Government Had It In The Records Exactly What The Plans Were, Or At Least Close To It”

And when asked to clarify that statement, he explained
"I have never changed my position on 9/11, and I do not accuse the government of planning or knowing about 9/11 beforehand. "

invisible
11-17-2014, 09:08 PM
I'm sure he's talking about Able Danger. I've always believed this version as well. http://historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=abledanger

In a nutshell: Able Danger was a unit charged with collecting data on terrorist suspects, namely OBL and his gang, starting in 1998. As they got closer to suspecting a terrorist act in the U.S., federal agents confiscated their info, and the CIA and FBI were not permitted to share info with each other. Several whistleblowers from Able Danger came forward to state that their investigation was quelled.

Notice how not many people know about this? It's because the media is complicit in the cover-up. Our glorious government knew we were going to be attacked and let it happen.

This could perhaps explain why:

http://www.okcbombing.net/News%20Articles/terrorist_motel.htm

If this recollection is correct, the entire incident, and its absence from the public record, raises new questions about the FBI investigation of Moussaoui and even the 1995 destruction of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Already the FBI has endured a withering political and media critique for failing to aggressively investigate Moussaoui and his contacts during his four weeks in custody prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Some FBI officials have responded by characterizing Moussaoui as only a minor player. But the report from the motel owner, if proven, could change that. And it also could force the FBI to reopen its investigation of Middle Eastern connections to the 1995 Oklahoma City blast, because convicted bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols reportedly stayed at the same motel, interacting with a group of Iraqis during the weeks before the bombing.

As for the terrorists who took part in 9/11, Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi visited the Airman Flight School in Norman in July 2000, according to the Moussaoui indictment. (The motel owner identifies al-Shehhi as the third person with Atta and Moussaoui when they allegedly inquired about a room.) And on April 1, 2001, Nawaf al-Hazmi, who helped hijack American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, was stopped for speeding in Oklahoma and given two tickets. The Oklahoma state trooper found no outstanding warrants and turned al-Hazmi loose. The media has since reported that the CIA had been tracking al-Hazmi, but never told the immigration service or the FBI that he was a suspected terrorist during his 21-month U.S. stay. Authorities have never publicly accounted for Atta and al-Shehhi's whereabouts during the time of the alleged motel encounter.

http://911blogger.com/node/15075

The man in the truck with McVeigh has been identified as Hussain al-Hussaini and was seen at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in the truck by six witnesses to the scene. Al-Hussaini was named as John Doe#2 by local TV station KFOR and had to flee the state. He later returned to press a suit of defamation against Jayna Davis and KFOR, but his suit was dismissed and his alibi for that day has been proven a lie.

In The Third Terrorist, Jayna Davis documents that al-Hussaini later went on to work at Boston’s Logan Airport as a baggage handler, and was there the day of the 9/11 attacks. Lead Hijacker Mohammed Atta’s flight took off from Logan Airport that morning while his baggage later went on a different flight, to be captured by the FBI with its incriminating “last will and testament” inside. Al-Hussaini’s whereabouts these days are unknown.

http://deadlinelive.info/2011/09/09/the-okc-911-link-the-media-and-authorities-willfully-ignored/
And many more sources, that a quick search will reveal.

newbitech
11-17-2014, 11:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jyY6rqP_3Q