The post is divided into 2 parts. The first part is a bunch of information showing that there was something seriously wrong with the 9/11 Commission followed by the second part which covers a couple of smoking guns which seem to have been purposely ignored in the investigations of the 9/11 Commission... clearly proving it was corrupted and it's conclusions can't be trusted.
Introduction
Moment of Zen - President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had a... ... ... ... "good conversation" with the 9/11 commission.
Problems with the 9/11 Commission:
Then there was the opposition to the 9/11 commission followed by reports of 9/11 commission shenanigans by the Bush Administation (Why?)
• O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn't oppose 9-11 Commission. O'Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards '04 TV ad highlighting Bush's opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)
On The Censuring Of The 911 Commission: "I think there are things they knew which they didn't share with the public" Philip Shenon...
Highlight
Thomas Kean talks about the process of getting over two million documents in spite of bipartisan resistance to the 9/11 commission. (7:17):
Headlines - Blame - Former Secretaries of State and Defense from the Bush and Clinton administrations, along with former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, testify before the 9/11 Commission. (9:54)
It's clear that Richard Clarke's testimony, if taken seriously, would certainly have implicated the Bush Administration in purposely letting the attacks happen... given JUST how much evidence couldn't be hidden from the public;
The Clinton administration left the Bush administration with only a series of actionable items listed together on a piece of paper, not a plan. (8:11) {This is what the whole 'Clinton should have got Bin Laden' episode was about, Bush's "incompetence"}:
Highlight
9/11 Commission: Clarke's Testimony - Richard Clark has seen the Washington matrix for what it is, and now he's trying to force feed us the red pill. (2:50):
Daily Show: Dick Cheney doesn't recall Richard Clarke warning the White House of an imminent terrorist attack months before 9/11:
First, the following video compares and contrasts the difference in which an investigation was handled in the UK as opposed to here in the US... and makes it clear that this was a VERY strange investigation as Bush & Cheney seem to have dictated the rules of the inquiry and didn't even put their replies on the official record!
Accountability in the U.K. - David Cameron Kills it
Highlight
The Smoking Guns
The Iraq War
WTC 7
The Iraq War
Headlines - 9/11 Commission Report - Vice President Dick Cheney argues that the theory that there was a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has not been unproven. (3:35):
Help provided by the right wing media (as usual) here are some samples;
• O'Reilly falsely claimed Iraq had ricin. O'Reilly responded to a caller to his radio show by defending the Iraq war: "They did have ricin up there in the north -- so why are you discounting that so much?" In fact, the Duelfer report (the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, which conducted the search for weapons in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion) indicates that Iraq did not have ricin. (10/19/04)
• O'Reilly repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link. O'Reilly interrupted a former Clinton administration official who tried to correct the record on O'Reilly's claim that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also allowed a conservative guest to repeat without challenge other discredited claims about Iraq's supposed involvement in terrorism -- claims O'Reilly has himself cited in the past. (9/27/04)
• O'Reilly treated Radio Factor listeners to a cornucopia of misinformation about intelligence, Iraq, terrorism May 11, 2006
Moment of Zen - Pretty Well Confirmed - Vice President Dick Cheney claims he never said there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. (0:18)
Related:
The Iraq War - ILLUSTRATED
WTC 7
Authorities knew all day that Building 7 would fall because it was a preplanned demolition & the media was prepping its viewers for it...
Here is video evidence of news anchors/reporters knowing the impossible before it happened...
The problem was, as NIST acknowledged after the architect & engineer outcry, that NEVER EVER in the history of building buildings has a building fallen like that unless it was a demolition. There was simply no scientific explanation for what happened before the NIST "investigation" proved that for the first time in history a fire (a tiny fire, apparently, in some corner of the building) can cause a building to fall like it was demolished. How the authorities knew that this never before occurring event would happen that day, all day, without any real precedent for? Well, like I've said in my previous posts in this series. The anti science party has a tendency for coming up with explanations AND strategies before actually consulting a scientist to discover if the particular theory they are going with in their official story is even possible or not.
Highlights:
NIST: "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,"
"This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7."
i.e. this is a view of the "uncontrolled fires" that are supposed to have caused the WTC 7 to fall (see any fires? All I see is some smoke and one tiny fire)...
The building was BARELY on fire (not to mention showing NO MAJOR DAMAGE). Here is a video proving that fact:
This is what a real fire looks like (& this building didn't collapse like a pancake!):
The building didn't fall. Why? Because skyscrapers don't fall from fire cause they are built using steel beams. So how can something which isn't possible and which we could never have known before the fire (cause architects and engineers solved this problem a long time ago to bring the buildings UP TO CODE) have been known about to the point that everyone in the media was waiting for it to happen?
Answer: Because it was clearly what it was. i.e. a controlled demolition set up by the GOP administration AND announced (being the anti science party) for the purposes of effect. The problem was that the lack of science was so significant that the Republicans and - after a "good conversation" - the Democrats that including anything about WTC 7 was a bad idea in the 9/11 Commission Report.
BTW, the other thing the NIST is pushing in it's proof of something which has never happened before is that there would have been sounds of explosions.
NIST: Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.
Clearly they didn't do a real investigation...
9/11 - WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)
WTC7 in 7 Minutes - 9/11 Explosions not Fire
If this was a planned demolition that the most important - and loudest - charges for the demolition could have been set up right after the WTC towers were hit to use that chaos as cover (even if we discount the explosion we actually caught on video). It sounds unbelievable, but go ahead and notice what it looks like when two buildings fall in a controlled demolition (which takes at least a week to set up)...
Now, try reading this post.
Related Posts:
1. An Overview Of The Strange Inconsistencies In The OFFICIAL Account Of The 9/11 Incident Using The Daily Show
No comments:
Post a Comment