1
   

Major anomalies in the official "government" story of 9/11

 
 
JTT
 
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 03:52 pm
Quote:
PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

12/22/07
PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org

Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:

The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.

All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.

Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.

Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells.

Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.

Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

In May, 2007, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001 .

According to the US Govt, United Airlines Flight 93 approached Somerset County from the North-Northwest at a high altitude on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, many witnesses contradict altitude as well as approach path. Also according to reports, and as the impact crater suggests, United Airlines Flight 93 impacted terrain at an almost vertical 90 degree angle, while the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle.

The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset Country, PA.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of United Flight 93 and the events observed.

As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information and in depth analysis please visit pilotsfor911truth.org.

Members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UA93_Press_Release.html
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 03:58 pm
Link to:

How did the World Trade Center collapse?

http://able2know.org/topic/141399-1
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 04:00 pm
Quote:
9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45.

Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight.

How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3]

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.


[added emphasis is mine]
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 04:00 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

12/22/07
PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org



You didn't follow instructions, JTT. Today is November 29, 2010. You were supposed to release the 12-22-07 press release IMMEDIATELY.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 04:05 pm
Quote:
United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.

Radar Coast Mode activates when a transponder is inoperative (or turned off) and primary radar tracking is lost, which enables ATC to have some sort of reference of the flight after losing radar coverage of the physical aircraft.

When an aircraft target enters "Coast Mode", ATC is alerted in the form of a blue tag on the target as well as the tag letters switching to CST. ATC will readily recognize when an aircraft enters "Coast Mode".

According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001. The following transcript excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center - East, Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is as follows in real time:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To read the conversation, go to,

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html
++++++++++++++++++

United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability.

Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.

It is impossible for ATC to have observed United 93 transponder and altitude after the reported impact time and southeast of the crash site, if United 93 did in fact crash in Shanksville as the 9/11 Commission would have you believe.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data does not support observed events. See Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three - Flight Of United 93 for full in depth analysis of United 93 Flight Data Recorder (Black Box) data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.




0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 04:07 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
You didn't follow instructions, JTT. Today is November 29, 2010. You were supposed to release the 12-22-07 press release IMMEDIATELY.


Is this some sort of a nervous laugh, WJW?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 04:17 pm
Quote:
National Transportation Safety Board PDF Documents

Sept 23, 2006 - We have the pdf's for UA93 FDR via NTSB. I noticed the FDR shows UA93 at 40 degrees pitch down and -5 degrees Angle of Attack at impact (FDR shows -15 as level throughout flight, -20 at impact).

If that was the case, it would seem UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 35 degree flight path.

The pictures of UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 35 degree impact creating a long ditch. Remember, the ground here is reported to be very soft.

Also interesting to note, GPWS, "Sink Rate", and "Pull Up" was not activated at any time during approach to impact according to the Flight Data Recorder pdf.


Below is a picture of Eyewitness testimony and Popular Mechanics reported flight path. They contradict each other.

For picture, see,

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UAL93.html

0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 04:31 pm
@JTT,
You should have alerted us sooner. Your quoted material is old.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 04:51 pm
@wandeljw,
Why on earth would it matter how old the material is, WJW? Did you even read it?

It tells you, if you have any brains or the slightest bit of courage that simply lubing up and bending over really isn't a great option.

But you proceed as you wish.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 05:01 pm
Quote:
Analysis of 9/11 Commission Report prior to release of Flight Data Recorder

First let me say i offer no theory or speculation. I definitely do NOT offer that is was a missle, global hawk or otherwise. All the following will be facts (according to reports) and questions.

So, i started with NTSB, since they are the "go-to" guys when you want a report.. right?

This is what i get...

Summary.
"The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. " Full report here. NTSB report.

All reports from the NTSB for all 4 planes on Sept 11 are identical.

Ok, sounds reasonable. So lets check with the FBI reports.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm
Thats all i can find from the FBI.

So, lets go to the 9/11 Commission report.
"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 ....

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60...

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed."

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The footnote "59, 60, 61" refers to The Flight Path Study of American 77 provided by the NTSB, which no one can find. One person claims to have called the NTSB and the NTSB says they havent done any reports/analysis for any of the aircraft of Sept 11. NTSB phone in DC (202)-314-6000. I tried, but i hit brick walls. Update: 8/11/06 NTSB Flight Path Study released.

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.

Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.

My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...


For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 03:03 pm
@wandeljw,
Why would it matter how old the material is, WJW?
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 03:41 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Why would it matter how old the material is, WJW?


It is anomalous to use old reports about anomalies. The anomalies have probably since been cleared up and there is no longer anything to debate.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Oct, 2011 11:18 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
there is no longer anything to debate.


"debate", that's pretty hilarious for you to be using that word, JW. "debate" is just not you. Obfuscation is more your cup of tea.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 06:02 pm
@JTT,
The 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 06:08 pm
@JTT,
Yup, they told us, smug and self satisfied as always, always quick to establish one more piece of propaganda, "Watergate proved that the US system of governance worked".

Quote:

Whitewash as Public Service
How The 9/11 Commission Report Defrauds the Nation
by Benjamin DeMott

...


Conceivably it was at or near the moment when Bush took this position that the members of the Commission who heard him grasped that casting useful light on the relation between official conduct and national unpreparedness would be impossible. The reason? The President's claim was untrue. It was a lie, and the Commissioners realized they couldn't allow it to be seen as a lie. Numberless officials had appeared before the whole body of the Commission or before its aides, had been sworn in, and had thereafter provided circumstantial detail about their attempts—beginning with pre-election campaign briefings in September, through November 2000, and continuing straight through the subsequent months—to educate Bush as candidate, then as president-elect, then as commander in chief, about the threat from terrorists on our shores. The news these officials brought was spelled out in pithy papers both short and long; the documentation supplied was in every respect impressive.[2]

Nevertheless the chief executive, seated before the Commission, declared: Nobody told me. And challenging the chief executive as a liar entailed an unthinkable cost—the possible rending of the nation’s social and political fabric.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1113-28.htm


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 06:20 pm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/cover-up-and-propaganda-the-9-11-commission-finishes-its-dirty-work/779

Cover-up and Propaganda: The 9/11 Commission Finishes Its Dirty Work

By Larry Chin
Global Research, June 27, 2004
27 June 2004

The 9/11 Independent Commission is an orchestrated coverup, controlled by the Bush White House and Bush Justice Department, headed by Bush-appointed directors, and run by legendary Washington fixers and veteran war criminals with direct ties to the most likely 9/11 planners, operatives and beneficiaries. This fact has been amplified, as the Commission has begun to wrap up its final report , burying the truth about 9/11, under new piles of spin, distortion, theater, unsupported allegations, warmed-over Bush administration lies, and lurid new fabrications.

The highlights from the most recent releases speak loudly of the Commission’s political agenda: engineer a limited hangout that absolves the Bush administration for 9/11, concealing key complicity evidence. At the same time, the Commissioners selectively criticize Bush for Iraq-related policy, while laying political groundwork for an “improved” and more aggressive “war on terrorism”, and new US/UN operations in the oil-rich Middle East.

As journalist Joyce Lynn succinctly points out in her expose of the “9/11 Coverup Commission” :

The Commission’s report due July 28 will render rationales to expand the security state at home and abroad and promulgate huge spending for the “war on terrorism.”

The Commissioners have ties with the very parties they are investigating including the CIA, banking and financial interests, and Bush administration officials.

The Commission’s report will echo the “who would have ever thought” and bungling federal intelligence agencies that independent journalists and researchers dispelled long ago.

The Bush administration has written the plot line and these 10 “independent” Commissioners are merely reading the script.


A stage-managed damage control organ from day one


Like the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 , the insulting charade conducted in 2002, the 9/11 Commission is not an “investigation”, and never has been one. Indeed, the full name of the group—the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon America— is a dead giveaway. The phrase assumes that 9/11 was a “terrorist attack upon” the United States, carried out by “Al-Qaeda terrorists” originating outside of the United States. In other words, case closed.

The Commission was formed only after public pressure, notably by outraged 9/11 victims’ families, forced the White House to undertake some measure of public damage control. Opportunistically, the Bush White House dictated the conditions under which the Commission would operate. In addition to being granted numerous protections, Bush himself would appoint the Commission’s director, as well as dictate and approve its mandate. Another condition was that the Commission had to be comprised by “prominent citizens”—political elites and Washington insiders.

Ultimately, the mandate was limited strictly to “how to prevent future breakdowns”—cementing into place the assumption of unintended “breakdown”. In other words, its strict mission was to echo and reinforce the original White House lie that 9/11 was an act of “outside terrorism” (“Al-Qaeda”), that the “failure to stop it” was the result of “intelligence failures”, “incompetence”, “breakdowns”, “lack of preparedness”, “inexplicable communications problems”, and other excuses.

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton proclaimed, “The focus of the commission will be on the future. We’re not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission’s responsibility.” Criminal responsibility and complicity were never part of the mandate—assuring that no one would be brought to justice.

The Commission went on to dutifully handicap itself further, by agreeing to numerous conditions and “compromises” with the White House. Six out of ten of the Commissioners had to agree on any request for a subpoena. Requests for documents from the executive branch had to be channeled through the Bush Justice Department. The White House requested, and received, the right to review Commission material so that it could assert executive privilege. Kean cut a deal preventing Bush from testifying. He cut yet another deal allowing the White House to edit intelligence briefs before the Commissioners could see them, while also limiting access to the pre-edited briefs to a minority of Commissioners. Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the Commission over this issue, put it simply: “That decision compromised the mission of the 9/11 Commission, period.”

In its own Staff Statement No. 16 , the Commission concedes that its own work has been slipshod, at best [my emphasis underlined-LC]:


“Much of the account reflects assertions reportedly made by various 9/11 conspirators and captured Al-Qaeda members while under interrogation. We have sought to corroborate this material as much as possible. Some of this material has been inconsistent. We have had to make judgment calls based on the weight and credibility of the evidence. Our information on statements attributed to such individuals comes from written reporting; we have had no direct access to any of them.”


The Commission’s processes—corrupted as they clearly are—have been largely insulated from public involvement and participation. Outraged 9/11 victims’ families and researchers have demanded greater access and accountability, to no avail.


Wolves guarding the hen house


The entire Commission is rife with conflicts of interest . Bush originally appointed the malignant Henry Kissinger to head the Commission. After this crude ploy failed, Bush chose an equally unsavory, but lesser-known fixer, Thomas Kean, to be its chairman. This was followed by the appointment of long-time Bush administration national security insider (and Condoleeza Rice colleague) Philip Zelikow as the Commission’s executive director, upon the recommendation of legendary Republican fixer, Slade Gorton.

Kissinger and Kean are directly connected to the current and previous Bush-Reagan regimes. Both are directly connected to long-time multinational oil interests in Central Asia that benefited from the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan and the planned trans-Afghan oil pipeline—the first objective of the 9/11 War.

Zelikow was a senior staffer on the National Security Council under the first President Bush. He also worked for the Bush transition team, and the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Bureau.

Other Commissioners are also legendary political fixers, who have been well-placed at all major US scandals in recent decades:

Lee Hamilton featured prominently as an Iran-Contra fixer . As House chairman of the committee investigating Iran-Contra, Hamilton believed that it was “better to keep the public in the dark” than investigate “another Watergate”. He casually accepted the word of senior Reagan-Bush officials, including George H.W. Bush himself, who claimed that they were “out of the loop”.

According to Dan Hopsicker , author of “Barry and the Boys: The CIA, the Mob and America’s Secret History”, Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste “has made a career of defending political crooks, specializing in cases that involve drugs and politics.” Ben-Veniste was the attorney for CIA narco-trafficker Barry Seal.

Former Senator Slade Gorton served on the notorious Senate Intelligence Committee for over a decade. Throughout his career, over scores of “hearings”, the hawkish Gorton consistently ran interference for Iran-Contra-smeared Republicans, such as Robert Gates.

Also on the Commission is former Senator Bob Kerrey, who has to this day refused to come clean on war crimes he committed during his stint in the CIA’s Phoenix Program .

Indeed, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves deserve to investigated and brought to justice.

In a case of bitter irony, the Commission interviewed two of its own members, Zelikow and Jamie Gorelick, in January 2004. Adding to the irony, Zelikow and Gorelick are the “gatekeepers”— the only two members of the Commission with full access to classified White House documents.

Michael C. Ruppert noted another blatant example of Commission malfeasance in a December 2003 edition of From The Wilderness :

“Thomas Kean, the Republican chair of the so-called Independent Commission investigating 9/11, chose on December 17th to advance a modified limited hangout saying that the attacks could have been prevented had it not been for incompetence and intelligence failures on the part of middle managers. The timing of that announcement, just four days after the “capture” of Saddam Hussein, was a weak attempt to bury unresolved questions about 9/11 in boosted Bush approval ratings.

The fact that Kean decided to make his announcement after having subpoenaed FAA records of Air Force and government actions on 9/11, but before receiving them; and after agreeing to the tepid compromise of reviewing partial extracts of George Bush’s pre-9/11 intelligence briefs, but before seeing them, is ample evidence of his political motive. Investigative bodies rarely pass public judgment before reviewing the evidence.”

On April 8, 2004, Condoleeza Rice perjured herself before the Commission , repeatedly insisting that the Bush administration had no advanced intelligence about Al-Qaeda, nor did it have specific warnings about 9/11. The Commissioners simply nodded. As noted by Ruppert:

“A crime was revealed when Democratic commission member Richard Ben Veniste said, “We agree”, as Rice asserted that there were no specific threats inside the United States before 9/11. The so-called independent commission has no intention of fulfilling its mandate. Ben Veniste’s use of the word “we” was the only time where any commissioner spoke for the entire panel and Ben Veniste is neither the chair nor the Vice Chair of the commission. What prompted him to speak for the entire panel? As FTW has said from the commission’s inception, everything that we have witnessed thus far has been stage-managed drama intended to convince the American people that substantive answers to 9-11 have been obtained as a result of a difficult process. This is an insulting load of bull.”

...
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 07:56 pm
@JTT,
250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' Found in the Mainstream Media


http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 08:17 pm
@JTT,
Jt,
There is not a single person outside of the US that doesn't know 9/11 was an inside job.
And not many therein either.

CFR, Club of Rome, etc...............
We're all watching Smile
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 08:29 pm
@mark noble,
I actually must admit that I personally do not know that for certain, Mark. But what truly amazes me is the reluctance of people to discuss an issue that has many many perplexing anomalies.

What also amazes me is how Parados/JWandel are willing to outright lie, to use gross distortions to try to prevent any discussion from happening.

Just as there were good Germans, so too are we learning just how many good Americans there are.

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 08:40 pm
@JTT,
Real Pilots Speak Out on September 11th Lies 911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc3EZMuerWY
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Major anomalies in the official "government" story of 9/11
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/23/2014 at 04:25:59