National security adviser Condoleezza Rice testified Thursday under oath and in public before the independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001. The White House initially refused to allow Rice's public testimony but reversed its position after pressure from relatives of 9/11 victims, commission members and politicians.

Following is a transcript of Rice's testimony before the commission:

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-08/politics/rice.transcript_1_terrorist-threat-freedom-hating-terrorists-response-across-several-administrations/21?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

thats crazy....i have heard that there was alot of shady elements to the attack on 9/11...that there was alot of theories and also that the gov't knew that an attack was imminent.

interesting!

there are some videos on youtube that something that does not look like an airplane that hit the pentagon.. some do some fake looks to them though...they are grouped with that link i posted...

Ooof, the "No Plane" theory was intended for the twin towers not the Pentagon...gawd the Duhiers can't even get their lies right...the accusation is that a missle hit the Pentagon, the "no plane" theory was invented by the Duhniers to make the 9-11 CT's look stupid. We didn't blink an eye...just laughed.

Thanks to the OP for that report...now we have professionals from all walks of life demanding a REAL investigation...unlike this one:



PS, there are at least 75 videos that would show what hit the Pentagon? Seen more than the one 5 frame non-revealing one released?

Didn't think so.

Gee, why not release the rest.

i do have to agree with you on the pentagon site does not look like a plane...something does look a little fishy with that

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.

Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
Video interview 6/28/09:

General Stubblebine: I am Major General Albert Stubblebine. I am retired Army Major-General. In my last assignment -- my last command -- I was responsible for all of the Army's strategic intelligence forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence. They all belonged to me, in my last assignment. …

I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That's Intelligence, OK, before the fact. So, we always -- always -- rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple and the more pieces of data that you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going on. …

So I have had a lot of experience looking at photographs. I have looked at many, many different kinds of photographs, from many, many different platforms on many, many different countries, around the world.

Interviewer: OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon?

General Stubblebine: I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.

Interviewer: What made you believe that?

General Stubblebine: Well, for one thing, if you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel -- vehicle, or whatever it was -- have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.

One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off." But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off -- there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don't have that evidence. …

I did -- I've never believed that it was an airplane since I've looked at the photographs. Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said. After I looked at it -- NO WAY! …

We pride ourselves with the "free press." I do not believe the "free press" is free any more. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this.

Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being -- what certainly the -- the stories that were told -- all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake. It didn't fall down to its side. It didn't fall to this direction or that direction; just like the two Towers. …

When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and then you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt -- to melt -- the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows; It does not match the facts. What is it they do not want the public to know? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E


Video documentary One Nation Under Siege 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" http://www.undersiegemovie.com


Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.


Bio: http://web.archive.org
http://www.mo911truth.org/

Hmmm, I dont know about that!! Where is the plane?? Where is all the massive debris that a 747 would have left strung out all over the place??

Wheres the bodies, and all the luggage??
Why is'nt that entire wall knocked down??...instead it has a small hole in it??

Where is all the video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon??

That is still too small of an area for the damage that a full size 747 would inflict. Looks more like a bombing to me.

thats crazy....i have heard that there was alot of shady elements to the attack on 9/11...that there was alot of theories and also that the gov't knew that an attack was imminent.

interesting!

yeah...like the truth is ever really going to come out...maybe in 75 years when the reponsible parties are all dead and buried as is usually the case...