High-Level Officials Eager to Spill the Beans About What REALLY Happened on 9/11 … But No One In Washington or the Media Wants t

George Washington's picture

9/11 Commission Admits It Never Got The Facts ... But No One Wants to Hear From the People Who Know What Happened

9/11 Commission: We Never Got All of the Facts

9/11 Commissioners admit that they never got to the bottom of 9/11. For example:

Indeed, 9/11 Commissioners and other officials say that the true facts were hidden from them, or covered up (you don't have to get bogged down in reading this section - you can skip ahead to the next, if you like; this is just documenting that the 9/11 Commission report is in no way the last word on 9/11):

  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently saidAt 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
  • 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, and who has for years been a tireless anti-war advocate and critic of imperial foreign policy (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”

  • 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”

High-Level Officials Want to Explain 9/11 ... But Are Being Gagged

There are high-level officials who can tell us why 9/11 happened ... but they are being ignored or gagged.

As Senator Patrick Leahy said that Congress doesn't want to know what happened:

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?

And the people who can explain what happened are being gagged.

FBI Translator - "The Most Gagged Person" In History

For example, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds - President of the National Security Whistleblower Coalition - who has been deemed credible by the Department of Justice's Inspector General, several senators (free subscription required), and a coalition of prominent conservative and liberal groups - has fought for years to testify about what she knows about 9/11, and has repeatedly asked to be subpoenaed (so as to avoid violation of her oath of secrecy as a government employee).

The ACLU described Edmonds as:

The most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.

And famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says that Edmonds possesses information "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers".

Not a single politicians or prosecutor has been willing to issue a subpoena.

Edmonds also made the following offer:

If anyone of the major networks --- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX --- promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know," about everything mentioned above, she told us.

"I can tell the American public exactly what it is, and what it is that they are covering up," she continued. "I'm not compromising ongoing investigations," Edmonds explained, because "they've all been shut down since."

Not a single major network has let Edmonds say what she knows.

Indeed, Ellsberg says that the government has ordered the media not to touch Edmonds:

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today’s American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations.

As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who “sat on the NSA spying story for over a year” when they “could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome.”

There will be phone calls going out to the media saying ‘don’t even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,’” he told us.

* * *

“I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to ‘How do we deal with Sibel?’” contends Ellsberg. “The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn’t get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told ‘don’t touch this . . . .‘”

Other Whistleblowers Being Silenced

Edmonds also says that she has been contacted by two high-ranking military officers who would like to shed light on 9/11, but - due to their oaths of secrecy - can only do so if subpoenaed. No one in Washington wants to issue a subpoena.

High-Level Military Intelligence Officer: No One In Washington Wants To Know

Similarly, a high-level military intelligence officer says that his unit - tasked with tracking Bin Laden prior to 9/11 - was pulled off the task, and there warnings that the World Trade Center and Pentagon were being targeted were ignored.

Moreover, he says that he has information that can shed light on 9/11, and that he has repeatedly tried to get this information to the Obama administration and Congress, but that no one in the administration or Congress wants to hear about it. As just one example, Nancy Pelosi's office demanded that he not even email any information which he has about 9/11.

He is still working in military intelligence, and so he can only publicly speak about 9/11 if he is subpoenaed. He is therefore asking that he be subpoenaed ... but no one wants to look into it:

There are numerous other whistleblowers with key information about 9/11. But no one in the government or media wants to hear what they know.

9/11 was one of the most important events in American history, as 10 years of war in numerous countries - costing trillions of dollars - and the crackdown on liberties like freedom of speech have all been justified by that one event. And yet the politicians in D.C. and the corporate media don't want to hear from the people who can explain the gross incompetence (or worse) which occurred on that day

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Smiddywesson's picture

Thanks AD.

I know one of the incidents on that list was not a false flag (as far as one can know anything), but that is irrelevant.  The pattern throughout history is crystal clear and cannot be disproved by one or two examples that don't prove out.  That was a great read.

CH1's picture

Thank you for posting, Dissident - a great compendium of fact.

I appreciate your efforts.

Canaduh's picture

More about that Tonkin incident-plus more you would probably wish you could forget once you are done reading-




Lazane's picture

"the ability of the human mind to resist the intrusion of information is infinite"

is something the elite globalist cabal has known and practiced for centuries

aerial view's picture

Sadly a handful of men decide what information Americans should know and what they should not. Truth and transparency must be removed from American dictionaries as they have become words which no longer have meaning.

pods's picture

Wonder what traitors are looking at their 30 pieces of silver?

Conscience is a bitch.


gmrpeabody's picture

I'm still trying to understand how they got that moonscape so real looking and all. It even looked like there was less gravity.

Oh.., wait... nevermind.

pods's picture

They used the set from that Rammstein video.


Cole Younger's picture

Unless you have evidence that planes did not hit the 3 buildings and that all the people that made phone calls to loved ones from the planes was staged, give it a break.

My only question regards the Black Boxes. If there is any cover-up I would suggest it would be that the hi-jackers had control of the plane(s) on the ground and were allowed to take-off. This is unlikely as ATC lost track of the planes and recorded communication that was released appeared they had no clue what was going on. I would think that ground controllers would pass a hi-jack situation on to ATC. Still. I would like to hear or have a un-redacted transcript of what was on the black boxes. Supposedly, the black boxes were not recovered from the trade center. I kind of doubt that.

I am not a building engineer (and neither is the 9/11 truthers) so to speak to the building collapses I will leave that to the experts however, 125 tons  hitting a structure at 400+ knotts is going to do some severe structural damage. Ballistics are ballistics and mass is mass regardless if it is a plane, artillery round, or a bullet.


Bring the Gold's picture

Actually 1600 truthers ARE engineers and architects:




And this MIT engineer has some rather serious issues with the NIST report.


Bringin It's picture

Cole - what kind of 1/2-ass'd outlaw are you posing to be?

Look - Unless you have evidence that planes did not hit the 3 buildings ...

Try this math.  Two planes and three buildings.  Not possible.  Buildings collapsing like old Las Vegas casinos.  Not possible w/o pre-planned, pre-wired controlled demolition.

No plane hit Building #7.  Building #7 is some distance from the towers.  Interviening structures were left standing.  Building #7 is not mentioned in the so called 9/11 commision report.

Watch it collapse into it's footprint one more time and then say it was not a controlled demolition.  I dare you Cole.  I double dare you. 



Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

No on the scene evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.  ZERO!!!!!!!

alien-IQ's picture

While you readily admit that you are not a structural engineer, there are no less than 1500 engineers and architects that call this governments account of what happened to building 7 in particular complete bullshit and impossible.

Many of their finding can be read here: (not that you will)

As far as the cell phone calls from the planes go...given the technology at the time, they simply were not possible. In fact, the first time technology was developed to allow cell phone call to be made from inside a plane in flight took place in July of 2004 as mentioned in this article in USA Today.


Any more questions?

Cole Younger's picture

Hmmm.."Any more questions?" Did you read the article? Of coarse not...you read the headline only and posted it. How else can you explain "As far as the cell phone calls from the planes go...given the technology at the time, they simply were not possible. "

"Qualcomm chief executive Irwin Jacobs sat in the front row of coach and made one of the first legal cell phone calls from a commercial jetliner."

" a demonstration of Qualcomm's cellular technology at 25,000 feet."

"Even before Thursday it was widely known that cell phones will sometimes work on jetliners. Some travelers use them surreptitiously. On Sept. 11, 2001, several passengers aboard hijacked airliners called loved ones."

"However, the FAA and the airlines ban them because they fear that the signals could interfere with navigational equipment. The FCC bans their use from planes because the signals reach many cell-phone towers and have been shown to disrupt cellular networks."


Like all cultists, you don't know your facts as you are to much in a hurry to proove something. You provided the article, I suggest you read and comprehend it.

stev3e's picture

Interesting that you would read the article that way.

I'm not taking sides in this particular conspiracy theory but the article as I read it seemed to be celebrating a new event in technology - an acceptable quality of cellphone use in a commercial airliner at 25000 feet.  The gist of the article was that this one something new.  Then out of the blue they state a single caveat-

"Even before Thursday it was widely known that cell phones will sometimes work on jetliners. Some travelers use them surreptitiously. On Sept. 11, 2001, several passengers aboard hijacked airliners called loved ones."

which seemed to create a preemptive defense against any 911 conspiracy theorist.

In any case, from the description, Irwin Jacob's new and improved cellphone technology in 2004 did not seem to produce in quality a cellphone call that approached that of any of the recorded calls that were allegedly made three years earlier on 9/11/2001.

Can you explain why he was so excited about the quality of his call when three years earlier on the WTC flights they were better?

Cole Younger's picture

25,000 feet or close to 5 miles from a cell site? I don't believe cell phone transmissions are high power. I could be wrong as I am not educated in that technology but neither are 99.9% percent of the 9/11 cultists. Most of the cultist are not educated in any of the technologies or engineering that would allow them to give a honest and educated assessment of what occurred. They take a bunch of other peoples theory and state it it is fact.

stev3e's picture

I'm not disagreeing with you nor am I educated in cellphone technology but the article seemed to indirectly support those that say the cellphone calls on 9/11 may not have happened.

Fukushima Sam's picture

Try to have something real to add to the conversation rather than jus parroting back what you think the official story is.  Do your research and then you too will lose all faith and trust in your government, and begin wondering when they may attack us next.

Cole Younger's picture

I lost faith in this government years ago however, to suggest this is some sort of organized conspiracy is ridiculous. I am not qualified to investigate this as I am not educated in the many fields it takes to understand what occurred. Are you? To suggest you do your own research is basically Bull Shit. Yes, I can go on the internet and read 1000's of other peoples theories, opinions, spin, and bull shit. Some of those theories may seem plausible to the person not a expert in that field but that does not make the theories true or factual. That's why I suggest this movement is a cult. Most have no clue what it takes to knock down building such as the twin towers as it has never occurred before. Again, just because something never happened does not mean it can't. Prove that it can happen under certain conditions and see if those conditions existed at the time. If those condition didn't occur, you may have a argument.

Bring the Gold's picture

Yeah some sort of organized international conspiracy a plausible one like:

19 guys with boxcutters beat out the greatest air defense system ever known to man, along with related intel agencies, prevented an investiagtion for over 400 days, got said investigation to NOT find the money trail, got the investigation to NOT have key witnesses testify under oath and got WTC7 to fall while WTC 6 and WTC5 did not even though they suffered far greater damage and fires. 

You know the above is the official story with just a wee bit of sarcasm thrown in there about how they influenced things post-humously to be an incredibly poor, delayed, underfunded and neutered investigation after all the physical evidence had been destroyed.

The Arab hijackers actually had NOTHING to do with the investigation and really that should be the give away right there. 

pods's picture

Well we have evidence that one building that fell did not get hit by a plane. Pretty damning evidence.

The NIST report stated that WTC7 collapsed due to office fires.

If anyone really believed that line, why would anyone ever work in a skyscraper again?  If an office fire can cause a building to fall down like that, why hasn't every single steel framed building in the entire nation been condemned?


Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Hi Pods!  Actually the idiots are changing insurance parameters for skyscrapers and are teaching that steel melts at 1000 degrees farenheit per Alex Jones this week.

Interesting that the penthouse on top of WTC 7 collapses first before the rest of the building:).


pods's picture

Well all those highly trained demo experts are almost exhausting their 99 weeks of unemployment when it was found out that a simply office fire can do a better job than they could.



chindit13's picture

However, you have evidence that debris from the north tower ripped a twenty story hole in WTC7, that fuel and generator lines were ruptured, that it burned out of control from that time until it collapsed, that the NYFD, from 2pm onwards, expected that it would collapse and discussed it on radio, that firefighters heard it creaking and listing (especially the penthouse), that its seismic footprint was 18 seconds (far above "freefall"), and that a sizeable portion of the undamaged north side of the building collapsed last, actually falling south across the rest of the building and toward the debris from the north tower, which is hardly "in its own footprint".

So if there is any lesson, it is evacuate your high rise if any neighboring 110-story tower is likely to fall on it and set it ablaze, especially when the majority of your city's fire department is already dead or else looking for survivors in 220 stories of former adjacent office space.

pods's picture

That is why they call it imploding, not exploding.  The building falls in on itself.  There was not a 20 story hole from the evidence that I have seen.  Maybe a ten floor section that was damaged.  

Are we to take all the radio transmissions at face value?  Or only the ones that reinforce your POV?

Cause there were plenty talking about bombs, and even some about the exploding panel truck of the Dancing Israelis.

I do not agree that it fell in freefall speed.  Certain parts of the descent surely did.

If I were you I would not invoke the penthouse, as that was far away from any damage or fire.  For that to collapse first ruins the rest of your story.

It realy does not matter to me.  I have seen enough evidence to where I will not trust anything that comes out of this government.  

I just like to screw with people fighting their cognitive dissonance.



DaveyJones's picture

"It realy does not matter to me.  I have seen enough evidence to where I will not trust anything that comes out of this government."

Ah pods, you just summed up everything  

American Dissident's picture

And every structure fell perfectly into its own foot print as if by.... never mind.  Z I O N I S T  D R O N E S AND C A N N O N  F O D D E R UNITE!

Fukushima Sam's picture

Can you provide evidence of other steel buildings that have collapsed from fire?  The Twin Towers don't count.  ;-)

chindit13's picture

While I'm checking on the names of that bridge in Oakland and that toy factory that fit your request, perhaps you could find for me buildings with structures similar to the three that came down, that were either struck by commercial aircraft traveling at 500 mph and carrying tons of jet fuel, or had 20-story holes ripped in them by the collapse of an adjacent 110 story tower, and then had their fires burning without being addressed by fire department personnel (dead or otherwise occupied) for eight hours.

Oh, and you do yourself a disservice by quoting or paraphrasing Rosie O'Donnell.

Bringin It's picture

Bridge in Oakland??? CA??  You mean the Bay Bridge?  During the Loma Prieta EARTHQUAKE.  Come on genius.  You can do do better.

How about a link to your 20-story hole story?  Is that from the 9/11 commision report?  No, it is not, because they convieniently forgot to even mention Bldg.7  Looks like you're making stuff up which is pretty pathetic.

You tons of jet fuel is basicly kerosene.  Chindit - go turn on your propane BBQ grill.  Put it on High, as in highest temperature.  Go have a beer.  Have another beer.  Have two more.  Ooops!! You forgot about the grill.  Did it melt?  Did it break?  Did it collapse?  No.  It did not.  Why?  Because the propane does not burn hot enough to damage the steel grill and the propane burns hotter than the jet fuel/kerosene.  So how did the jet fuel/kerosene collapse the WTC buildings?  The buildings were designed to withstand a fully loaded Boeing 707 hit.  Acording to Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, interviewed on January 25, 2001, the towers could take multiple airliner hits and survive.


You're suspending the laws of physics in order to continue engaging in and pushing your fantasy.

pods's picture

Well I am trying to find the story about when the Empire State Building collapsed when that B-25 hit it.

Gimme a little while.


Bringin It's picture

Pods - I have to say re. Chindit, he does make a useful foil.

Thanks for your honesty and courage.

chindit13's picture

I’ll give you all the time you need. All the rope you need, too.

By the way, ever flown a B-25? Very cool. Among war birds, there are quite a few still around. You can pick one up for $250-350K. Climb in one and you really appreciate Jimmy Doolittle and his Tokyo raid. Tiny things, for a bomber. An F-16 has a multiple of the payload capacity of a B-25.

As for the ESB and the Twin Towers, different structure. Apples and oranges. Reinforced concrete vs. virtually naked steel beams.  A fully loaded B-25 is 33,000 pounds and even at top speed is only doing about 230 mph, about the speed of a Mooney Acclaim.  The 767 weighs in at 357,000 lbs with the estimated 19000 gallons of fuel it had when it struck, and it was traveling at somewhere around 450 mph.  I'll let you do the momentum calculations.  (tens times heavier, twice as fast as least).

DaveyJones's picture

you know the most amazing thing about these new fangled planes is how they (1) make a building collapse in its footprint (2) disable and confuse NORAD response, (3) make the government, in defiance of many laws, immediately remove all steel debris evidence of the largest terrorist crime scene in American history (4) make the vice president set up five similar terrorist exercises on the same day (5) propell the FBI to seize all camera evidence and refuse to release it to the public, (6) create massive expolisions at the foot of the buildings prior to their collapse, and (7) make the brand new building owner take out a bizzarre and unique insurance policy against terrorist attack months before the event.

Keep trying       

pods's picture

Yeah, I get it.  F=ma.  

Never flown a b-25.  And yes, I know the differences between them.  It was a joke asshole.

Which flight exactly hit WTC7?

I mean, all that force I would think it would have fallen much sooner?

You should argue that since WTC5 and 6 collapsed from 1 and 2 damage, it was just as likely that 7 would collapse as well. 

Wait, 5 and 6 DIDN'T collapse?  But they were alot closer?  In fact, they were right between building 7 and 1&2.  


chindit13's picture

Never claimed any aircraft hit WTC7. Debris from the north tower definitely hit it, and ripped a twenty story gash in it according to transcripts from NYFD firefighters on the scene.  Fires began burning at that time, giving them about eight hours to attack the structure.  Some firefighters tried to make sure the building was cleared of workers, but most firefighters were either already dead or else searching the rubble of the two towers for trapped colleagues or workers.  That pretty much left the fires in WTC unattended.  By 2PM, according to NYFD transcripts, parts of the structure were leaning, and loud rumbles were heard.  Firefighters on the scene reported they thought the building would collapse.  It did not fall at "free fall speed".  The north side (undamaged by the debris from the north tower since it was distant, collapsed last, falling with many stories intact over the rest of the building already on the ground.  This was not "in its footprint".

None of that suggests "controlled demolition".  The burden of proof falls on those who think conspiracy and controlled demolition.  They have not delivered.

By the way, you intended your B25 comment to be proof of something.  For you to suggest otherwise in a thinly veiled attempt to save face.

Kiwi Pete's picture

Here is a video of WTC7 collapsing: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html It looks like how a controlled demolition looks. It does not look like parts of the structure were leaning or that the north side collapsed last.

pods's picture

No, you suggested that planes never hit buildings.  Or this was some unique situation.  I merely brought up that in fact another plane did hit another building.

I know the differences between a fully loaded heavy and a B-25, and that the situations were not identical.  

There was not a 20 story gash in WTC7.  Look at the pics.  There was damage to one corner of the building.  There were no raging fires.

You make all these assumptions based on these transcripts.  But what about all the other transcripts that say "bomb".  There are numerous ones.  What about firefighter interviews about seeing molten steel running down in the basement?

What about the transcript of the guy FROM WTC7 who reported on the fire?  He stated the fire was not big, do you want to bring up a crew to put it out?

Look at any overhead shot of WTC 7.  It DID fall in its own footprint. 

It is pointless to argue with you, since you believe this.  We might as well argue about Jesus, or Santa Claus.  For those fall into the same category. Beliefs.

I am fine with keeping them there as well.  As that is where they belong.  An attack like this cannot be put into that category.


Cole Younger's picture

Can you provide evidence that it can not occur? The proof that a conspiracy took place is in the hands of you and your fellow cult members. Just because something has never happened, doesn't mean it can't. Instead of suggesting it couldn't occur, figure out how it can occur and see if those conditions were met. Unless you have technical knowledge you will be unable to do this so it is easier for you to propagate other peoples BS. I can't do the research as I am unqualified to do so. I don't have the technical background but neither do you and your cult members. Just because you or the many other's cannot comprehend how things happend, doesn't make it a conspiracy. 

Fukushima Sam's picture

Well, supposedly the Pentagon was hit by a similar plane, but the damage was no where near the same.

ItsDanger's picture

None of the comments in this 'article' provide any specifics whatsoever.  Hypocritical.  Leak it on the internet if its credible. 

mountainaires's picture

If they'll cover up the attack on the USS Liberty for more than 40 years, what makes you think they won't cover up the truth about the 9/11 2001 attack on the World Trade Center? 


If they'll cover up the facts about Luis Posada Carriles for decades, what makes you think they won't cover up the truth about the 9/11 2001 attack on the WTC?


Dismissing the fact that the 9/11 Commission and Sibel Edmonds are credible, qualified voices who have stated outright that there was a cover-up, only proves that denial runs deep. The clear possibility exists that there are facts about 9/11 we don't yet know; only when the debate is allowed and the facts are discussed in the open, will we ever know whether or not those facts are credible. A cover-up is occurring, without a doubt, since an open discussion is not allowed to take place. 


Cole Younger's picture


Luis Posada Carriles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles What's the cover-up?

USS Liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident Whats the cover-up? Looks like it was a mistake during the 6 day war.

"Dismissing the fact that the 9/11 Commission and Sibel Edmonds are credible, qualified voices who have stated outright that there was a cover-up, only proves that denial runs deep."

I ask, cover-up what? The fact that the U.S. knew something may occur? I know they did as It is public record. Did they know specific information...the who, what, when, and where? No. There is a difference between knowing something may occur and credible actionable information. The devil is in the details and no one has came forward with information that states that the administration had actionable and credible information. If information exists, put it out. The media will investigate it Someone saying they know something but not providing what they know is either a coward or full of shit.

alien-IQ's picture

the attack on the USS Liberty was a "mistake"???Are you on fucking Crack? Or are you just THAT stupid?

Why not take a look at what the men that were onboard that ship have to say about it being a mistake?

Here they are, in their own words. Call them a liar:
Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty

The Alarmist's picture

1) Are you telling us that instead of being a chimp that Bush was an evil genius? Or

2) Is there a secret cabal that has been running things all along but who were so in fear of losing control that they were evil enough to set up the murder of thousands of innocents? And

3) If Sibel were really such a liability, don't you think the evil geniuses would have taken care of her?

Isn't it easier to apply Occam's Razor and accept that a few evil foreigners actually pulled off a significant hit, an our own leaders are simply bumbling along trying to figure out how to deal with the consequences?

I must admit a good conspiracy theory is always more entertaining and less troubling than admitting the emperor we choose to follow really is naked and stupid.

Bring the Gold's picture

Occam's Razor requires the explanation to fulfill all known facts. A simpler explanation should not be favored over a more complex one that addresses all known facts.



Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

What the fuck is up wit these "oaths of secrecy"...?????

When your dealing with fucking goverment terrorist,it's time to give this "oath" shit up.

Get a fucking grip.


You know the old saying of warriors.....

"It looks like a GOOD DAY to die.......

Blano's picture

It's always amazed me how the blame for 9/11 could somehow be put on an administration only in charge for several months who couldn't even fart sideways without some dipshit Democrat dumbfuck blocking their path, yet the prior administration, in charge for 8 years, gets off scot free.  No way all this info about the hijackers was discovered AFTER Bush took office.  I'd be willing to bet that a full blown investigation would destroy plenty of Democrats, which is really why it ain't gonna happen.