US Military Insider: "it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation"

Brown Bomber

Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) spent Five and a half years as director of studies at the US Army War College is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College.

I think it is of no significance but to nip the anti-semitic smears in the bud Dr Sabrosky is also Jewish.

He was intereviewed this week on the The Ugly Truth by Mark Glenn and Phil Tourney, himself a USS Liberty survivor.

(compliments to Mahatma Coat;))

Article on the interview by Gordon Duff, himself a Vietnam Marine Vet for veteranstoday.com; http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/03/19/22329/

Those youtube links are living a short life, so here is a link to the podcast
http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/2010/03/19/the-ugly-truth-podcast-march-18-2010/

Part 2 (of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7hIqa9nim0&feature=related

fontanalis

Everyone knows it was the holograms.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/your_friday_dose_of_woo_and_now_for_some.php

Brown Bomber

fontanalis wrote: »

Everyone knows it was the holograms.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/your_friday_dose_of_woo_and_now_for_some.php

Not reading all that crap unless its relevant, is it? how? Otherwise...Please don't take the thread off topic.

Torakx

That little speech in the leaves of grass is coming to mind

kryogen

before i watch this, is he gonna provide any evidence of this or is it just gonna be a lot of speculation with no real proof?

i dont accept the official version of events, but im not sure why MOSSAD would do it, i get the false flag, turn everyone against islam angle, but its not stong enough for me

other possibilities seem more likely from my own research

studiorat

Not a shred of proof.

Biased and one sided interview. It spends more time discussing the mans academic record than discussing any actual facts.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Not a shred of proof.

Here is some background on Israel and 911. http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?geopolitics_and_9/11=israel&timeline=complete_911_timeline

I like these:

• September 6, 2001: US Considers More Favorable Policy Towards Palestinians; But Change Is Halted by 9/11 Attacks
  
  
• September 9, 2001: Media Leak Leads to Investigation into Israeli Spying in US
  
  
  
  
• September 10, 2001: Army School Peacekeeping Report Says Mossad Can Target US Forces with False Flag Attacks
  • 
  
  
  
  

Also of note A Clean Break. Notice the date, it ties in with the fake Al-Qaeda idea.

July 8, 1996: Neoconservative Think Tank Advocates Aggressive Israeli Foreign Policy

Aggressive, Militant Israeli Policy towards Arab Neighbors - Much along the lines of an earlier paper by Israeli Oded Yinon (see February 1982), the document urges the Israelis to aggressively seek the downfall of their Arab neighbors—especially Syria and Iraq—by exploiting the inherent tensions within and among the Arab States. The first step is to be the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, allowing governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and other countries to be replaced. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them,” the paper says

So when did Mr OBL first start hating Americans and Zionist Crusaders?

August 1996 was his first fatwa against the US, 1 month later :D:D!
You couldn't make this **** up.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

studiorat wrote: »

Biased and one sided interview. It spends more time discussing the mans academic record than discussing any actual facts.

Did you listen to part 2?

Who is making the claim, especially in this case US Military top brass is extremely important. He was on the inside. You and I have not.

bonkey

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who is making the claim, especially in this case US Military top brass is extremely important. He was on the inside. You and I have not.

Why is it extremely important?

There are no end of military "insiders" who have said that it was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, an operation carried out by Muslim extremist terrorists, acting under the auspices of a group known as Al Qaeda.

When people make such claims, however, being a military insider counts against them. They're "part of the system". Indeed...their being "on the inside" was exactly why we couldn't and shouldn't trust them.

It makes this guy credible and worthy of attention.Here, however, being a military insider is supposed to be worth something.

Why the difference?

Either being on the inside is worth something or its not. If we start distinguishing based on the message, then in reality we're equating "credible" with the message, and not the qualities of the messenger.

fontanalis

So were the pilots Mossad; did Mossad remotely control the planes or did they plant the thermite?

mysterious

studiorat wrote: »

Not a shred of proof.

Biased and one sided interview. It spends more time discussing the mans academic record than discussing any actual facts.

What is proof? Who determines proof? What kind of proof do you need to prove something you want? Where and who do we turn too?

studiorat

mysterious wrote: »

What is proof? Who determines proof? What kind of proof do you need to prove something you want? Where and who do we turn too?

The articles in linked to in the OP don't actually discuss the topic. They talk about Zionism and yer mans academic background. The excerpt from the radio show ends before the article in question is read. Likewise there's no immediately apparent links to the article.

It's not a question of what is proof or not. The topic isn't even discussed!

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

The articles in linked to in the OP don't actually discuss the topic. They talk about Zionism and yer mans academic background. The excerpt from the radio show ends before the article in question is read. Likewise there's no immediately apparent links to the article.

It's not a question of what is proof or not. The topic isn't even discussed!

Yeah sorry, that was my fault. I assumed a link to part 1 was sufficent when part 2 was easily available from part 1 via youtube. There are 5 parts. Personally I reccomend reading them all.

(also the full audio is available in the linked Ugly Truth podcast, and I have edited the OP to include part 2 on youtube. If you'll only listen to one more listen to part 2)

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So when did Mr OBL first start hating Americans and Zionist Crusaders?

Did you listen to part 2?

Who is making the claim, especially in this case US Military top brass is extremely important. He was on the inside. You and I have not.

About 1992, he's been implicated in the 1993 WTC bombings. And claimed responsibility for the killing 18 US troops in Somalia in 1993.

This is my favorite: September 1, 1992: US Misses Opportunity to Stop First WTC Bombing and Discover Al-Qaeda from the history Commons timeline.

One of the manuals seized from Ajaj is horribly mistranslated for the trial. For instance, the title page is said to say “The Basic Rule,” published in Jordan in 1982, when in fact the title says “al-Qaeda” (which means “the base” in English), published in Afghanistan in 1989.

This is something that struck me as very odd. Why would someone think the arabic or pashto for base would sound remotely like the word basic. A similar error turns up in Zeitgeist confusing the translations of Sun and Son.

It would certainly seem that lots of people know something was going to happen. None of it suggests MOSSAD actually did it, capable of it but not actually doing it. I'd conceed that some in the group may have known about the plan though.

Brown Bomber

bonkey wrote: »

Why is it extremely important?

There are no end of military "insiders" who have said that it was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, an operation carried out by Muslim extremist terrorists, acting under the auspices of a group known as Al Qaeda.

When people make such claims, however, being a military insider counts against them. They're "part of the system". Indeed...their being "on the inside" was exactly why we couldn't and shouldn't trust them.

It makes this guy credible and worthy of attention.Here, however, being a military insider is supposed to be worth something.

Why the difference?

Either being on the inside is worth something or its not. If we start distinguishing based on the message, then in reality we're equating "credible" with the message, and not the qualities of the messenger.

Say for example I come from a largely criminal family and elements within my family have just robbed and bank and gotten away with it, despite evidence linking them to the theft. Other family members played a smaller support role (for the good of the family) but dare not speak out because a) It would put their lives in danger b) They would implicate themselves. This small band of bank robbers keep the heist to themselves by and large and defiantly refute any and all connections to the robbery.

The minority of the family are moral and are not criminalised and are proud to have the family name. This smaller group however suspect the criminals within the family are involved. The criminals in the family are part of a very small group capable of pulling off such a sophisticated operation and also they have visiblly benifitted greatly from the robbery. It becomes clear to me over time (as a non criminal member of the family, but crucially still an insider) that the criminal members of my family have robbed the bank.

I choose to speak out and state the criminals within my family robbed the bank.

Many other members speak out denying the family robbed the bank.

Who would you trust?

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I choose to speak out and state the criminals within my family robbed the bank.

Many other members speak out denying the family robbed the bank.

Who would you trust?

But that logic still works both ways. There's "whistle-blowers" saying it was an inside job, saying it was Israel, saying they warned the FBI. Why believe this one as opposed to any others. There's no shortage of doctorates and war hero's either for that matter.

bonkey

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who would you trust?

None of them.

I'd listen to what each of them had to say, and then weigh that up against the evidence.

They could all be lieing. They could be sowing confusion for whatever reason. They could be lieing to each other. They could be misguided. They could be mistaken.

There are any number of possibilities, and there is no way to judge those without looking at the evidence. In fact, I would argue that it mostly works in reverse....by looking at what the evidence supports, we can find out who is correct and who is not. It is not the individual nor their track-record which should lead us to the conclusion...rather the conclusion should tell us which individuals were telling the truth.

From that sense...I weigh each insider equally...and the weight is minimal.

kryogen

starting with a theory and looking for evidence of it is wrong (Sherlock Holomes said similar )


you can only use the evidence there is to come up with a theory

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) spent Five and a half years as director of studies at the US Army War College is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College.

Can I ask what years. from when to when, he was at the US ARMY College, and was a marine?
and also how this experience links him to Military Top Brass.... to get the inside story.....

Brown Bomber

bonkey wrote: »

None of them.

I'd listen to what each of them had to say, and then weigh that up against the evidence.

They could all be lieing. They could be sowing confusion for whatever reason. They could be lieing to each other. They could be misguided. They could be mistaken.

There are any number of possibilities, and there is no way to judge those without looking at the evidence. In fact, I would argue that it mostly works in reverse....by looking at what the evidence supports, we can find out who is correct and who is not. It is not the individual nor their track-record which should lead us to the conclusion...rather the conclusion should tell us which individuals were telling the truth.

From that sense...I weigh each insider equally...and the weight is minimal.

A lot of court cases are won and lost on how much evidence can be obstructed. Cue Michael Chertoff.

When 911 happened Michael Chertoff was assistant Attorney General. The Assistant Attorney General is responsible for the criminal division of the the Department of Justice. What this means is he was the top official for the US security services for the 911 investigation/cover-up.

Fast forward to 2005 and Chertoff became secretary of The Department of Homeland Security (created 2005). This position empowered him to decide which evidence from 911 could be released to the courts in litigation cases taken by the families of victims.

His cousin, Benjamin Chertoff even wrote a propoganda piece for Popular Mechanics "debunking" 911 conspiracy theories.

Chertoff's mother was the "first air-hostess" for Israeli airline El-Al during Operation Magic Carpet. A top secret intelligence operation which transported 49,000 Yemini Jews to the new state of Israel.

He wrote the Patriot act. Which for some reason prevents security firms such as suspected Mossad front ICTS who are responsible for security at all of the 911 airports.

The Nigerian crotch bomber connects both ICTS and Chertoff again. ICTS were again the security firm in Schipol Airport which allowed the Nigerian to board his detroit flight with a bomb. Chertoff left office in 2009 and founded a security company who has as one of its clients the manufacturers of the controversial body scanners. Chertoff was plastered all over the news at this time proclaiming the neccessity of the body scanners which he will profit handsomely from.

You don't think its important that a military top brass claims that he is 100% that the Mossad carried out 911, and many of his contacts serving in the military no think likewise. I strongly disagree.

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

Can I ask what years. from when to when, he was at the US ARMY College, and was a marine?
and also how this experience links him to Military Top Brass.... to get the inside story.....

Well he wasn't just "at" the US Army War College; he was Director of Studies.

This is from their Wiki page.

The War College is a split-functional institution. While a great deal of emphasis is placed on research, students are also instructed in leadership, strategy, and joint-service/international operations. Approximately 600 students attend at any one time, half in a two-year-long Internet-based program, and the other half in an on-campus program lasting ten months. The college grants its graduates, both civilian and military, a Master's degree in Strategic Studies.
The Army handpicks most of the students who participate in the residential program, but the student body always includes officers from the other military branches, civilians (from the Pentagon, State Department, and the National Security Agency), and several dozen senior officers from foreign countries. For example, the residential Class of 2004 included:

• 268 officers from the Army (active, reserve, National Guard), Navy (active, reserve), Air Force (active, reserve, National Guard), Marine Corps (active, reserve) and U.S. Coast Guard;
• 30 senior civilian employees of the federal government; and
• 42 officers from other countries.

The average age of students is 45 years old and the typical military rank is Lieutenant Colonel. Majors with the specialty of FA 59, Strategic Plans and Policy can attend the Basic Strategic Arts Program (BSAP). Army applicants must have already completed the U. S. Army Command and General Staff College (where they receive training after achieving the rank of Major).

It would be difficult to be more connected to the Military top brass.

As for the Marines - he is a Vietnam Vet.

Brown Bomber

fontanalis wrote: »

So were the pilots Mossad; did Mossad remotely control the planes or did they plant the thermite?

In the bigger picture I'm sure you would agree who did it is far more important than how it was done.

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well he wasn't just "at" the US Army War College; he was Director of Studies.

This is from their Wiki page.



It would be difficult to be more connected to the Military top brass.

As for the Marines - he is a Vietnam Vet.

there are thousands of vietnam vets, most of them have no knowledge of what the top brass are up too....

from the wiki page, shows no connection to top brass, the guys making the calls and decissions.

You are just making assumptions bassed no no evidence, because you want to believe...

If he is so connected... and knows it all, hope come its only his word and not other evidence is presented... surely there are memo's, emails or something from the Top brass....

fontanalis

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In the bigger picture I'm sure you would agree who did it is far more important than how it was done.

Do the who not determine the how?
Who was in the planes, remote controlled them and got rid of the passengers, or put the holograms on the missiles?

Vuctor

mysterious wrote: »

What is proof? Who determines proof? What kind of proof do you need to prove something you want? Where and who do we turn too?

You seem to find google infallible.
That then would be proof for me that it's not.

bonkey

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You don't think its important that a military top brass claims that he is 100% that the Mossad carried out 911, and many of his contacts serving in the military no think likewise. I strongly disagree.

I think you'll find that I said I give his claims no more or less weight then those of any other miiltary insider...and that I give none of those claims more weight than the evidence.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Say for example I come from a largely criminal family and elements within my family have just robbed and bank and gotten away with it, despite evidence linking them to the theft. Other family members played a smaller support role (for the good of the family) but dare not speak out because a) It would put their lives in danger b) They would implicate themselves. This small band of bank robbers keep the heist to themselves by and large and defiantly refute any and all connections to the robbery.

The minority of the family are moral and are not criminalised and are proud to have the family name. This smaller group however suspect the criminals within the family are involved. The criminals in the family are part of a very small group capable of pulling off such a sophisticated operation and also they have visiblly benifitted greatly from the robbery. It becomes clear to me over time (as a non criminal member of the family, but crucially still an insider) that the criminal members of my family have robbed the bank.

I choose to speak out and state the criminals within my family robbed the bank.

Many other members speak out denying the family robbed the bank.

Who would you trust?

Your basic argument is both arrogant and flawed, and worthy of a dullard like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones.

I know a young jewish woman who is an active and vocal member of the anti Iraq war.

You're equating members of an ethic group with members of a criminal gang. If you suggested all Italian Americans as being members of the Mafia. Or anyone of an Irish background of being a republican terrorist? Or any Muslim of being an Islamic extremists?

You're basically saying social and ethic background should be a factor, in people's actions. You'd be amazed at the Islamic punks I've spoken to. Or Al Jazeera journalists who like sonic youth, or the number of Israeli youths protesting the piece wall. I spent an enjoyable evening last week with a half Iranian man who managed to spent half an hour in a room interviewing. Nick Griffin and didn't punch him, which would explain how he has his job and I have mine.

But hey why let reality get in the way of your prejudiced.

bonkey

Di0genes wrote: »

You're equating members of an ethic group with members of a criminal gang.

As is clear from the question I asked him, that he quoted in the post you've taken exception to, his response is an analagy as to why he might trust someone who's a "military insider", without trusting all such people. That is, after all, what we we've been discussing from the start.

He's equating the "military insiders" with a criminal gang.

Assuming there's a typo in your comment...I'm not sure where ethnicity comes into that at all.
Assuming there isn't one, I'm not sure where you get the idea that its an ethical group.

Vuctor

bonkey wrote: »

As is clear from the question I asked him, that he quoted in the post you've taken exception to, his response is an analagy as to why he might trust someone who's a "military insider", without trusting all such people. That is, after all, what we we've been discussing from the start.

He's equating the "military insiders" with a criminal gang.

Assuming there's a typo in your comment...I'm not sure where ethnicity comes into that at all.
Assuming there isn't one, I'm not sure where you get the idea that its an ethical group.

leaving aside the general point that CTs will take refuge in any nutter who backs up their convictions....

your argument is nonsense.
Human nature means insiders generally tend to support their 'own side' so you have to be sceptical about their support.
and vice versa.

bonkey

Vuctor wrote: »

your argument is nonsense.

Human nature means insiders generally tend to support their 'own side' so you have to be sceptical about their support.
and vice versa.

I'm not sure how that makes my argument nonsense.

My argument is that I don't believe any of them out of hand, regardless of what htey are saying. I don't believe them if they're toeing the party line, and I don't believe them if they're saying the party line is a lie.

I treat them all of them skeptically.

How is that a nonsensical argument, unless you're suggesting that people who say "the party line is a lie" are somehow inherently more trustworthy.

Vuctor

In reality the hostile testament of an insider will be looked at differently from that of an insider supporter.

More than likely there will be a grudge. But if it appears not then that evidence will be more impressive than that of a loyal insider.

Of course the bigger picture is that the CTs are permanently blind to himalayan levels of evidence that contradict their take, but will be shouting from the minaret tops if any mouth foamer tells them what they want to hear.

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

there are thousands of vietnam vets, most of them have no knowledge of what the top brass are up too....

from the wiki page, shows no connection to top brass, the guys making the calls and decissions.

You are just making assumptions bassed no no evidence, because you want to believe...

If he is so connected... and knows it all, hope come its only his word and not other evidence is presented... surely there are memo's, emails or something from the Top brass....

Read the Wiki page again...

Brown Bomber

fontanalis wrote: »

Do the who not determine the how?
Who was in the planes, remote controlled them and got rid of the passengers, or put the holograms on the missiles?

Yeah, but for the purpose of this thread I am not interested in rehashing the how argument.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

I spent an enjoyable evening last week with a half Iranian man

QUOTE OF THE YEAR!!!

:D:;)

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, but for the purpose of this thread I am not interested in rehashing the how argument.

ok staying with this guy.... how come he has no evidence to present?????
besides his own opinions, cause without any evidence, lets be honest thats all they are....

Brown Bomber

Seriously though I think you've lost the plot on this post.

Di0genes wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

I know a young jewish woman who is an active and vocal member of the anti Iraq war.

Is it a young Jewish woman or an old Jewish woman? As you claimed on another thread. Or a fabrication

Below makes no sense.

Di0genes wrote: »

If you suggested all Italian Americans as being members of the Mafia.

Di0genes wrote: »

Or anyone of an Irish background of being a republican terrorist?

Di0genes wrote: »

Or any Muslim of being an Islamic extremists?

Di0genes wrote: »

You'd be amazed at the Islamic punks I've spoken to.

Di0genes wrote: »

Or Al Jazeera journalists who like sonic youth,

Di0genes wrote: »

or the number of Israeli youths protesting the piece wall.

Di0genes wrote: »

I spent an enjoyable evening last week with a half Iranian man who managed to spent half an hour in a room interviewing.

Di0genes wrote: »

Nick Griffin and didn't punch him, which would explain how he has his job and I have mine.

Di0genes wrote: »

But hey why let reality get in the way of your prejudiced.

Reality? Huh?

And why exactly were Israeli youths protesting about walls in Northern Ireland?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) spent Five and a half years as director of studies at the US Army War College is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College.

I think it is of no significance but to nip the anti-semitic smears in the bud Dr Sabrosky is also Jewish.

He was intereviewed this week on the The Ugly Truth by Mark Glenn and Phil Tourney, himself a USS Liberty survivor.

I just listened to an exellent interview on the same show with Mavi Marmara hero and former US marine, he is now actually an Irish and Palestinian citizen.

Highly Reccomended
http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/2010/06/16/the-ugly-truth-podcast-june-17-2010/

Not just by me...I was quite suprised that one of the co-founders of Apple seems to have liked it too.

Steve Wosniak is comment maker number 4. If you click on his name it links directly to one of his sites. Strange

tallus

That was a very good interview BB. O'Keefe was very honest and articulate in his description of what happened.

Brown Bomber

tallus wrote: »

That was a very good interview BB. O'Keefe was very honest and articulate in his description of what happened.

I agree. There is something very moving for me when someone speaks so deeply from the heart and are so passionate about other people. It is easy to be honest when right is on your side.

This is going to sound like bull**** but I met one of the Swedish activists Matthias Gardell in a restaurant recently. He lives in the same small town as me where he is a teacher. He was on the Mavi Marmara, he can be seen on the smuggled video by Iara Lee. He's the big guy with white hair and a white beard. Anyway, speaking to him briefly made me realise that every passenger has a story so I set up a blog to record their collective testimonies before they dissapeared like so many anti-official story articles do.

Here it is
http://flotillamassacrepassengers.wordpress.com/

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

QUOTE OF THE YEAR!!!

:D:;)

Wow homophobic and racist. You are a class act.

Brown Bomber

Wow homophobic and racist

Because you're wrong and borderline racist

Considering your botched attempt to conceal your racist attitudes towards ...

Considering your botched attempt to conceal your racist attitudes towards ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:boards.ie+%22Di0genes%22+%22racist%22&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=HEn&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&channel=s&ei=uYUeTMcx0K04w_OQ7Qs&start=0&sa=N

You claim "Hey I'm not "anti semitic" but your posting history says a different story

No this. thread is littered with your anti-Semitism.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:boards.ie+%22Di0genes%22+%22semitic%22&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&channel=s&filter=0

When you make these claims it means nothing to me.

In this example there is no basis whatsoever for you to make such ugly claims of EITHER homophobia or racism. I can only assume you completely misinterpreted the post. I'll give you a chance to review the posts and retract your claims or I'll report your post - fair warning.

bonkey

Brown Bomber and Diogenes....if you guys can't learn to stop being so antagonistic to each other, you both can leave.

bonkey

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Steve Wosniak is comment maker number 4. If you click on his name it links directly to one of his sites. Strange

Don't you mean the comment was made from someone who knows the address of one of Steve Wozniak's sites?

Run_to_da_hills

Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters picketed at the Port of Oakland, in California, on Sunday hoping to delay an Israeli cargo ship from docking, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Police estimated that more than 500 demonstrators gathered early Sunday morning at Berth 58, where a cargo ship operated by the Israeli Zim shipping company was scheduled to dock. The crowd dispersed around 10 a.m. but around 200 protesters returned in the afternoon when a second shift of dockworkers were scheduled to work.

The demonstration was staged to protest Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Go back almost 9 years and just a week before the 9/11 atrocity Zim Shipping moved lock stock and barrel out 20,000sq foot of office space ion floor 17 of the Twin Towers and a forfeit of $50,000.00 in broken lease fees.

http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2010/06/which-side-are-you-on.html

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters picketed at the Port of Oakland, in California, on Sunday hoping to delay an Israeli cargo ship from docking, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Police estimated that more than 500 demonstrators gathered early Sunday morning at Berth 58, where a cargo ship operated by the Israeli Zim shipping company was scheduled to dock. The crowd dispersed around 10 a.m. but around 200 protesters returned in the afternoon when a second shift of dockworkers were scheduled to work.

The demonstration was staged to protest Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Go back almost 9 years and just a week before the 9/11 atrocity Zim Shipping moved lock stock and barrel out 20,000sq foot of office space ion floor 17 of the Twin Towers and a forfeit of $50,000.00 in broken lease fees.

http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2010/06/which-side-are-you-on.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/zim_shipping.html

Brown Bomber

humanji wrote: »

http://www.911myths.com/html/zim_shipping.html

Its not just 911. Zim appear to me to be involved with or are a branch of the Jewish mafia. Arms dealing, blood diamonds, human trafficking, drugs etc. The state of Israel owns something like 48% and they were caught attempting to deliver arms to Iran in a Zim ship in 2001.

bonkey wrote: »

Don't you mean the comment was made from someone who knows the address of one of Steve Wozniak's sites?

Well no, but I didn't realise the process at the time.

But if you listen to this interview it is consistent with hte comment.
http://216.240.133.177/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_050707_120000.MP3

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Its not just 911.

your right its not just 911 as zim shipping didnt just pack up an leave...
so there is no connection with them to 911