This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Anniversary of 9/11
Don't want to hear this?
Tough. Grow up.
9/11 Commissioners:
- The 9/11 Commission's co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)
- 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I
don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the
Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions
about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue
- 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
- 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One
of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11
issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover
it up"
- 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There
are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to
what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." He also said
that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al
Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking
- And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - recently said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described
.... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been
told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is
not true." And he said:
"It's almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word.
There were interviews made at the FAA's New York center the night of
9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations
were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened"
If even the 9/11 Commissioners don't buy the official story, why do you?
Senior intelligence officers:
- Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers".
He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her
allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning
government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious
questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials]
knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that
engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the
scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence
to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas
and testimony taken under oath (see this and this)
- A
27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and
personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials
(Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”
- A
29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and
former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis
(William Bill Christison) said “I
now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September
did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would
have us believe (and see this)
- A
number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer
who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence
efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne
Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious
shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission
Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were
ignored)
- A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who
Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called
"perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and
whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning
motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that "the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job
- The
Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as
Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of
International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004
(Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup"
If even our country's top intelligence officers don't buy the official story, why do you?
Congressmen:
- According
to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an
FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000
and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI
refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a
high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)
- Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said "The
two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11
happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was
going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"
- Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"
- Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11
- Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11
- Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
- Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation
- Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg doesn't believe the official version of events
- Former
U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed
Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the
Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown
that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
If there is bipartisan questioning of the official story, why aren't you questioning it?
Other government officials:
- U.S.
General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme
Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star,
and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've
never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the
administration actually misused the intelligence information it had.
The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time"
- Former
Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and
Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task
Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State
Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who
of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
- Former
Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department
of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S.
Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media
commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says
"The information provided by European intelligence services prior to
9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA
or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence"
- The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
- Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt"
- The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission
If top government officials are skeptical, why aren't you?
Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government's version of 9/11.
Note 1: Yes, this does have to do with economics and business. Nobel prize economist Joe Stiglitz just said
that the Iraq war is partly responsible for our bad economy. Many
forget, but the Iraq war was "legally" justified by the claim that Iraq
had a hand in 9/11. See this. And 9/11 has had a profound affect on the economy in many other ways as well. See this.
Note 2: This essay does not argue any theory of what did happen on 9/11; it only points out from credible sources that no thorough investigation has ever been conducted.
Note 3: As always, the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect
those of the owners of the Zero Hedge site. In fact, I have no idea
whether they agree or disagree with any point made herein.
- advertisements -
Funny how there is a 100% overlap between Zionist apologists like Spitzer, Francismarion and RichardPerle and supporters of the official conspiracy theory. It is as though they were afraid 911 truth might lead to widespread pogroms around the world. Now relax, Zionist footsoldiers, we are not after all Jews, only the criminals responsible for this and its derivative infamies.
Now some 911 videos released this week through NIST foia warrants by the International Center for 911 Studies (http://www.ic911studies.org , IC911Studies youtube channel).
look how the penthouse of the Solomon Bros Builting (WTC 7) sinks inside the building before the final demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus&feature=channel
The bomb-blasted foyer of the WTC7 before the fall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA&feature=channel
A close-up of a bomb-blast squib on one of the twin towers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1FJBVkh4s&feature=channel
Oh my! That's a really sharp retort!
"Having seen several comments from Spitzer now, the only rational conclusion to be drawn is that of a person suffering from third stage syphillis."
or perhaps he is an overworked govt flunky
he and his team need to debunk (try to anyway) everything that is posted today about 9/11 by people who have a better understanding of physics and engineering than he will ever have
how many blogs does his team have to cover today? 100s?
However it happened, I am sure that a conspiracy was involved!
And speaking of mind-rotting venereal diseases, has anyone seen JohnnyBravo?
Remember the Maine!
remember the 5 of November, what they can do to us we can do 1000x to them, there are more of us!°
2nd of November.
Fixed
Remember Pearl Harbor!
Remember the Alamo!
I don't think many people want to find out the truth( the real one). Truth is good when it does not concern us.
I don't belive a single bullshit was told about 9/11 but at the same time knowing the truth may have severe consequences. ANd it's easy to speculate on no data at all.
You do know that the towers fell and were struck by airplanes, don't you? Could it have been alien space craft?
People's brains will fry. And all those war mongers will find that the peace folks were right- this will be too much for them to handle.
A real investigation with real convictions would ignite a real economic recovery. I firmly believe this as it would lead to real liberty and freedom and the downfall of certain entrenched institutions.
+100.
We can recover (economically and spiritually) only when we learn the truth and regain control over our allegedly democratic institutions.
http://www.infowars.com/the-zapruder-film-of-911-daniel-sunjata/
Anything on infowars requires a leap of faith to believe in. there is not enough evidence to back up those claims.
Alex jones is a loser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
To believe anything on youtube is a leap of faith. This is just a link to the 1,270 architects & engineers who are calling BullShit. As far as AJ sometimes he gets it right & that's kinda scary...
Right on 1100,
Aj usually gets it (although at times he gets a little too emptional). What I don;t understand is why he (or anyone one else) take this all to its logical conclusion. Why whould this or any other society-changing event happen? It's not money (they can print that). Is it power? Maybe, but who really has that much energy to set up a structure over centuries and nations. call me crazy, but I think this all comes down to good vs. evil (and evil as a personality --- not just a "bad feeling" as some theologians say).
what was the big prize for staging 9/11 ?
As Darth Dick Cheney put it, "The American way of life isn't negotiable." Kind of, you know, what the oil industry folks were saying to the Taliban back in the summer of 2001 when the Taliban were still balking at the offered contracts: they were ultimately told that if they didn't accept the contract (for the pipeline) that they'd be bombed into the stone age; I supect that Osama bin Laden was the CIA hit man standing in the wings, though, as there really wasn't a target in Afghanistan, as has been made all too clear (to this empire, and many others in history's pages), the target was the American people, a campaign to get them to fight for oil, though cloaked in "promoting democracy" and other nonsensical BS.
It's about hanging on to power. Pretty simple, even a child could get this!
Further, people really need to get over the idea that "government" is somehow monolithic. There is, and has been for quite some time, the "Secret Government" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430#).
The Shadow Knows
The target in Afganistan is the US taxpayer.
The "contract" that the Taliban refused was to hand over OBL and the AQ leaders. The Taliban would still be very happy sodomizing Afghan boys if they had turned them over.
More control = Patriot Act
If by this point you still even need to ask, then you are probably never going to understand the answer.
But in a nutshell, here it is: enhanced federal governmental power, and enhanced profits for the military-industrial-surveillance complex.
As well as financial activity for the financial community.
Which is more likely, a cover-up of gross government incompetence or a cover-up of elegant and well executed conspiracy?
stick with the most simple explanantion.
Using your logic, the most simple explanation is the marginalization of coverups.
the "simple" explanation allows for isolating the event, a "one off" bit of "incompetence."
at some point it will be helpful to you to take all your isolated event "sentences" and make a joined-up paragraph, a short story even, that might bring you closer to the truth.
Also what about the hundreds of people that it would take to pull off a conspiracy? We can't get the Pentagon to stop leaking for an afternoon, how do hundreds of people all shut up for 9 years? Sometimes shit just happens and people look to anything wether its pagan idols or chicken droppings for answers to things they can't understand.
That's what THEY would like you to believe. But those who read history know that it's entirely possible- just do a bit of research on "Manhattan Project." Case closed...
I'm not saying for one minute that it isn't possible. I'm arguing its probability. For you to say that, "they were ABLE to pull it off for the Manhattan Project, therefore they DID pull it off on 9-11" is hardly: Case closed...
Do I think we got the truth? No.
Do I personally believe it more probable that it was covered up to hide: Corruption, Incompetence, Prior Knowledge, Illegal activity? Yes.
It is a very short story.
Once apon a time, there was a Federal Government. It fucked up everything it touched. Powerful people within the government would go to extreme measures to hide their UTTER incompetence and failures. The end.
well sure CC, your story is indeed short, and many people would agree with your conclusions. . .
but, there is a longer version that may or may not convince even more people, concerning The District of Columbia Act of 1871. . .
http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology-CorpUS.htm
sometimes the story has. . . backstory.
God Bless Americo, Inc.
always find it funny to see those DC plates:
"Taxation Without Representation"
and wonder if anyone ever wonders why exactly that is...why exactly don't DC residents have any representation yet are (supposedly) subject to federal income tax?
one could make a case that the clues to the entire blueprint to the mechanism of the all-seeing-eye, american style are embedded in that one license plate.
like a code hidden in plain sight
[Ack! Server glitch- removed duplicate post]
Nope, no incompetence here. We're talking about HUGE business interests having lots of ponies in this race. The Manhattan Project wasn't an accident; it shows just how well some big project can be undertaken with mindboggling precision and secrecy.
As Dick Cheney said, "The American way of life isn't negotiable." 9/11 was all about doing the unthinkable in order to save the unsustainable. If these dark figures didn't act they'd find themselves in broad daylight, naked, surrounded by the masses that they'd always been manipulating/deceiving.
LMAO...
+1
+1
How the heck did Dan Abrams of MSNBC and that stooge reporter from the BBC know at least twenty minutes before WTC 7 toppled that Larry Silverstein (by his calls to "pull it') was going to suicide WTC 7?
Must be vulcan mindmeld man!
The overwhelming tragedy is that 9/11 is just one of the more recent evil events inflicted on humanity by a nefarious cabal that infects not only the highest positions of power, but actually spreads across centuries. And the US is in the throes of its viral deathgrip.
+1000
truth.
OT, but this is why neither the GOP or the Dems should be governing...
http://gawker.com/5634055/the-craziest-political-speech-youll-see-this-f...
An exerpt from chapter 2 of my recently published "What if "It" Doesn't End With a Bang But With a Whimper? - Mind Games" essay.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/what-if-%E2%80%9Cit%E2%80%9D-doesn%E2%80%99t-end-bang-whimper-mind-games-chapter-two-two
For Example
A widely held and glaring example of inconsistent or contrary views is that after decades of abuse, many people now firmly believe their government (along with people in and out of the government) has repeatedly lied to them. They know their government will harm them, even going so far as to silence people by destroying them professionally or by reputation. Or even kill them if they present too much of a threat to power. Many now believe their government has repeatedly deceived them, fabricating “evidence” in order to drive the country into war or prolong and/or escalate war.
They realize that the government manipulates statistics about the economy, including allowing companies to cook their books to show (better) profits through national security directives. That they now overtly and covertly manipulate domestic and foreign stock, currency, commodities and precious metals markets to further their goals. And that they do so under cover of national security, saying in effect that the more they meddle, the more they must continue to meddle.
The government lies about the condition of the environment, the BP oil spill, national health issues, spying on its own citizens, torture and rendition, weapons of mass destruction, the list is endless. More and more people are beginning to comprehend that the government will rob the many to benefit the few and will hurt or kill those in its way.
People not only don’t trust the government, but they’re down right frightened of the government and for good reason. They’ve come to believe that the government is lethal to them, a remarkable admission considering it’s such a deviation from the public myth they’ve been indoctrinated into since grade school. This is a very sobering realization and one you’d think would have fully shaken them awake.
The (Cognitive) Border is Closed
But in many cases, people will only acknowledge emotionally difficult insights contingent upon rejecting others they consider far worse. This internal negotiation is carried out in a back room bargaining session with themselves, often with little awareness to guide the horse swapping other than a primal fear that’s driving the urge to hide or get away. But ultimately where do we go when we live within, and depend upon, that which we fear?
Most likely as a form of emotional self defense, many of these very same people desperately wish to believe their government (along with people in and out of the government) would never willingly ignore, encourage, support, promote or execute (false flag) attacks against its own citizens in order to further various goals or objectives, either private and/or governmental.
In other words, they chose to believe there are moral, legal, and physical boundaries that those in government, as well as their political allies and (corporate) enablers, just won’t cross. They in effect wish to believe that the sociopaths running the show will respect certain select moral and legal lines drawn in the sand by society and the governed. That the powerful in and out of government can and will kill a few, but not more than a few, that they will defend their hold on power, but only up to a certain point.
These people admit the government may have crossed these lines in other countries in the past and may still cross them today. And that they might have crossed these lines here in America deep in the distant past. However, distant is usually measured as being longer than they’ve been alive, thus making these transgressions emotionally safer.
Remember again that the perception of personal risk or safety is a function of proximity to the risk. So the further away in time they can pretend the government has violated “the rules”, the lower the personal risk appears to the denier that the government might again violate “the rules”. This allows us to believe that our present administration is the softer kinder sociopathic version (44.0) and really doesn’t have its citizens by the throat.
Or maybe they need to be further from the fact that they were asleep at the wheel, ignoring the obvious or inevitable while it occurred and thus potentially responsible, even if only morally. After all, a popular public sport is to claim we didn’t vote for so and so after the shit’s hit the fan. People in denial are very keen to avoid personal responsibility that might lead them back to their own denial.
Even after admitting all of the above, they still insist the government would never engage in this type of behavior today nor did it ever do so in the recent past, meaning within their adult lifetime. It would be too close for comfort otherwise and to seriously entertain this idea would overload and crash their cognitive process as well as their sense of personal safety. Thus the reason we read the “I can’t believe” and “You’ll never convince me” statements declaring a cognitive dissonant impasse and emotional safety. We all desire our comfort stories.
This “belief” is glaringly inconsistent, logically suspect and strikingly narrow. And not surprising at all considering most of us still wish to believe we live in the America of our history books and public myth and not in a South American banana republic with nuclear weapons and a reserve currency. Perception is reality, thus I control what I believe and what I perceive.
Which begs the obvious question? Whose line in the sand and what forbidden boundaries are we really talking about here? The ones we believe the government won’t cross, the ones we don’t wish to admit have recently been crossed or our own emotional boundaries, the ultimate do not enter stop sign?
This is a reasonable question because a brief look at history offers up dozens of publicly disclosed examples of major lines in the sand repeatedly crossed by so called democratic or representative governments, including the USA on multiple occasions. I say this not to define who’s right or wrong, but to declare under no uncertain terms that if we’re not being consistent in our thinking, if we’re unwilling to honesty assess all information at our disposal, if we’re being selective in when we apply logic, that this is a major signal that there’s denial blocking the way forward.
Don't get too carried away with the expense of self publishing. drivel is available at a very low cost from many sources.
Thanks CD for making a valid and well thought out point; it is refreshing.
BTW, My handle is my favorite wine made by Robert Biale, please forgive me for not explaining that earlier so readers would not lump me in with racism.
the only question that seems to be evaded at all cost is the one question any criminal investigation must start with: Who Benefits from this crime? Who has the most to gain from the policies instigated in it's aftermath? And who had the clout and connections to make it happen?
the answer is clear...but nobody wants to openly go there because it's the third rail. It's death to political and professional careers. but the facts are in plain sight...seek who benefited from 9/11 and you shall find the perpetrator.
All this discussion of "if" this was a false flag operation is in and of itself a sort of false flag operation. It's the wrong question. The only function this question serves is to distract from the truly important. The question is not "what happened" the question is "who did it"...all else is bullshit and distraction.
Dontcha just love it when conspiracies transcend the theoretical? ;)
(Watch 'em miss this one....)